DOCSLIB.ORG

Objasnjenje U Antropologiji

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Objasnjenje U Antropologiji Biblioteka Etnoantropološki problemi MONOGRAFIJE Knjiga četvrta Nina Kulenović OBJAŠNJENJE U ANTROPOLOGIJI Istorijski kontekst Univerzitet u Beogradu – Filozofski fakultet Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju Etnoantropološki problemi MONOGRAFIJE Knjiga četvrta Urednik biblioteke Prof. dr Miloš Milenković Sekretar Redakcije Marko Pišev Recenzenti prof. dr Ivan Kovačević dr Petar Bojanić, naučni savetnik dr Željko Radinković, naučni saradnik Uređivački odbor Rodrigo Araya Dujisin (Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile); Mirjana Veselinović-Hofman (Katedra za muzikologiju Fakulteta muzičkih umetnosti Univerziteta umetnosti u Beogradu); Ivan Vuković (Odeljenje za filozofiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu); Dejan Dimitrijević (Departament de sociologie-ethnologie Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis); Jelena Đorđević (Odeljenje za politikologiju Fakulteta Političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu); Zorica Ivanović (Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu); Zoja Karanović (Odsek za srpsku književnost, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu); Senka Kovač (Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu); Sanja Potkonjak (Odsjek za etnologiju i kulturnu antropologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Zagrebu); Radmila Radić (Institut za savremenu istoriju Srbije); Vladimir Ribić (Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu); Vojislav Stanimirović (Katedra za pravnu istoriju, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu); Lidija Radulović (Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu); Gordana Gorunović (Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu) Nina Kulenović OBJAŠNJENJE U ANTROPOLOGIJI Istorijski kontekst Beograd, 2016 Monografija je rezultat dopunjenog i prerađenog dela teksta doktorske disertacije pod naslovom „Status objašnjenja u raspravi o naučnom statusu sociokulturne antropologije“, odbranjene na Filozofskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu u decembru 2014. godine. Dopune i izmene teksta proizvod su rada na projektu „Antropološko proučavanje Srbije – od kulturnog nasleđa do modernog društva“ (br. 177035) koji je pomoglo Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije, kojem dugujem i zahvalnost na sredstvima bez kojih objavljivanje ove monografije ne bi bilo moguće. Etnoantropološki problemi – MONOGRAFIJE je neprofitno izdanje koje možete u elektronskoj formi besplatno preuzeti na adresi: www.anthroserbia.org SADRŽAJ I Uvod . 9 1.1. Predmet i cilj monografi je . 9 1.2. Teorijsko-metodološki okvir istraživanja. 13 1.3. Naučna i društvena relevantnost istraživanja . 19 II Ideali naučnosti i slike nauke . 25 2.1. Uvod . 25 2.2. Opšti zakoni i njihova uloga u antropologiji: antropologija kao „naučna“ ili kao „istorijska“ disciplina?. 30 III Metodološki monizam nasuprot metodološkom pluralizmu . 81 3.1. Uvod . 81 3.2. Metodološki monizam: metod kao kriterijum razgraničenja između nauke i nenauke . 85 3.3. Metodološki pluralizam: predmet kao kriterijum razgraničenja prirodnih i društveno- humanističkih nauka. 97 3.4. Umesto zaključka: razumevanje kao objašnjenje? . 117 IV Zaključna razmatranja . 129 4.1. Da li je metodološke strukture moguće razdvojiti od teorijskih?. 129 4.2. Konstruisanje objašnjenja u odnosu na predmet, metod i cilj discipline? . 135 4.3. Metodološka pitanja kao metafi zička, sociopolitička i etička pitanja?. 147 Napomene . 165 Literatura . 203 Sažetak . 223 Summary . 231 Čežnja za formalnim metodom, koji se može izolovati od stvarnih ljudskih procena o sadržaju nauke (tj. o prirodi sveta) i od ljudskih vrednosti, izgleda da je isparila. Pa čak i ako ovaj pojam metoda proširimo tako da formalizacija psihologije idealno racionalnog naučnika počne da se računa kao „metod“, nema razloga da se misli da će „metod“ u ovom smislu biti nezavisan od sudova o estetici, sudova o etici, sudova o čemu god vam drago. Razlog za verovanje da se naučni metod neće odnositi na verovanja o etičkim, estetskim i drugim pitanjima ili da ih neće pretpostavljati ležao je u verovanju da je naučni metod, naposletku, formalni metod. Patnam (Putnam 1981, 192–193; kurziv u originalu) Magična je moć antropologije koja „poseduje metod“ kojim generiše istinu, u smislu da insistira na jednom konstantnom garantu svoje „naučnosti“. Milenković (2007a, 59) Postoje velike razlike u mišljenju o tome šta čini adekvatno „objašnjenje“ kulture. Ti mnogobrojni načini na koje je objašnjenje konceptualizovano uključuju temeljno različite tačke gledišta o prirodi kulturnog razvoja, koji pak podrazumevaju različite načine posmatranja kulturnih činjenica. Stjuard (Steward 1972[1955], 3–4) Nije dovoljno pročitati samo ono što antropolozi govore, važno je i razumeti šta oni misle – što je često (na nesreću, ali verovatno neizbežno) dodatni, zasebni zadatak. Precizno značenje iskazâ jednog antropologa katkad se pojavljuje tek onda kad ih čvrsto smestimo u kontekst njegovih teorijskih stanovišta. [...] Svaka verna interpretacija antropoloških teorija mora uzeti u obzir dva osnovna faktora koja u teoriji često nisu eksplicirana: (1) opštu intelektualnu klimu u kojoj teorija sazreva i (2) pitanja na koja se antropolozi nadaju da će svojim istraživanjima odgovoriti – koja, naravno, u velikoj meri zavise od prvog faktora. Klakon (Kluckhohn 1939, 335; 341) Vreme je da se antropolozi posvete pravoj istoriji antropologije, da prestanu da se prema svojim precima ophode onako kako su se ti preci, prema njihovim optužbama, odnosili prema divljacima, naime, kao prema nazadnim, glupim i tako dalje, da prestanu, drugim rečima, da prenose usmene mitove o antropološkoj istoriji koji mirišu na naslonjaču na tremu i malo se late terenskog rada, sa svim njegovim mukama i nagradama, u istoriji same antropologije. Problemi i rasprave naših antropoloških predaka zaslužuju našu pažnju i poštovanje, delom zato što im to pravo pripada, a delom zato što od njih mnogo možemo naučiti. Ono što antropologija jeste ne može se razumeti bez njene istorije, a što se lakomislenije njena istorija odbacuje kao sramotna, to će samorazumevanje biti oskudnije, a znaci krize mnogobrojniji. Antropologija bi možda preporod trebalo da potraži u antropologiji antropologije. Džarvi (Jarvie 1975, 263–264) I UVOD 1.1. Predmet i cilj monografi je Osnovni predmet monografi je* koja se nalazi pred čitaocem jeste rasprava o statusu objašnjenja u antropologiji, kontinuirani i nikad formalno neokončani spor oko metoda. Spor oko meto- da u čijem se sklopu reprodukuju u XIX veku uspostavljene ra- zlike između dveju tradicija, Naturwissenchaft en i Geisteswissen- schaft en, između nomotetskog i idiografskog istraživanja, prati antropologiju od vremena njene akademske institucionalizacije kao discipline. Pod uticajem niza unutrašnjih i spoljašnjih činilaca taj se spor periodično reaktuelizuje i antropolozi obnavljaju borbu oko metoda nasleđenu iz XIX veka, deleći se duž disciplinarnog spektra na: – „pozitiviste“ i „antipozitiviste“ – „naučnike“ i „humaniste“ – „naturaliste“ i „antinaturaliste“ – „racionaliste“ i „relativiste“ – „univerzaliste“ i „partikulariste“ – „objektiviste“ i „subjektiviste“ – „opservacioniste“ i „konstruktiviste“ – „etičare“ i „emičare“ – metafi zičke/ontološke/epistemološke/teorijske „realiste“ i „antirealiste“ – metodološke individualiste i metodološke holiste – na one koji teže objašnjenju i one koji teže razumeva- nju proučavanih fenomena 10 Nina Kulenović, Objašnjenje u antropologiji – na nomotetičare i idiografe – na metodološke moniste i metodološke pluraliste Sociokulturni antropolozi koji teže levoj strani navedenih parova suprotnosti po pravilu smatraju antropologiju naukom. Verujući da upravo one odlike do kojih sami drže mogu i mora- ju stajati u temelju antropologije kao nauke, oni je brane od, po naučni status (navodno) razornih, uticaja (navodno) intelektu- alno neodgovornih i antinaučno nastrojenih antropologa bližih desnoj strani spektra, čije (navodno) nepoznavanje ili nerazu- mevanje naučnog metoda preti da ugrozi naučni status antropo- logije, čineći antropologiju eksplanatorno ispraznom i društveno neodgovornom disciplinom. Antropolozi koji teže desnoj strani spektra pak, po pravilu, vide prve kao scijentiste čije (navodno) nerazumevanje osobenosti predmeta antropološkog proučavanja vodi (navodno) nekritičkom i podjednako destruktivnom po- dražavanju metodološkog modela (navodno) preuzetog iz pri- rodnih nauka. Antropološke polemike pritom obeležava neslaganje kad je reč o teorijskom, epistemološkom i metodološkom okviru, kao i o tome šta bi trebalo da bude osnovni predmet i cilj proučavanja: – Da li je cilj discipline objašnjenje, razumevanje ili opisiva- nje kulturnih procesa i kulturno proizvedenih verovanja? – Da li je kultura eksplanandum ili eksplanans? – Da li kultura, kao nadindividualna celina, prethodi, nadilazi, nadživljava, oblikuje i determiniše pojedinca, i kojim mehanizmima? – Da li je pojedinac kadar da utiče na kulturnu promenu, i kojim mehanizmima? – Šta je uzrok, a šta posledica, i čemu dati eksplanatorni primat? – Da li je moguće pronaći natkontekstualne, natkulturne, atemporalne i transistorijske zakonitosti i da li takav cilj antropolozi sebi uopšte treba da postavljaju? – Da li je moguće dati uzročna objašnjenja kulturnih po- java ili je moguće isključivo razumeti ili interpretirati I Uvod 11 kulturno proizvedena i od konteksta zavisna pravila i značenja? – Da li je možda u pitanju pseudodilema proistekla
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 2 Alternating Sounds and the Formal Franchise in Phonology James Mcelvenny University of Edinburgh
    Chapter 2 Alternating sounds and the formal franchise in phonology James McElvenny University of Edinburgh A matter of some controversy in the intersecting worlds of late nineteenth-century linguistics and anthropology was the nature of “alternating sounds”. This phe- nomenon is the apparent tendency, long assumed to be characteristic of “primitive” languages, to freely vary the pronunciation of words, without any discernible sys- tem. Franz Boas (1858–1942), rebutting received opinion in the American anthro- pological establishment, denied the existence of this phenomenon, arguing that it was an artefact of observation. Georg von der Gabelentz (1840–1893), on the other hand, embraced the phenomenon and fashioned it into a critique of the compara- tive method as it was practised in Germany. Both Boas and Gabelentz – and indeed also their opponents – were well versed in the Humboldtian tradition of language scholarship, in particular as developed and transmitted by H. Steinthal (1823–1899). Although the late nineteenth-century debates surrounding alternating sounds were informed by a number of sources, this chapter argues that Steinthal’s writings served as a key point of reference and offered several motifs that were taken up by his scholarly successors. In addition, and most crucially, the chapter demonstrates that the positions at which the partic- ipants in these debates arrived were determined not so much by any simple tech- nical disagreements but by underlying philosophical differences and sociological factors. This episode in the joint history of linguistics and anthropology istelling for what it reveals about the dominant mindset and temperament of these disci- plines in relation to the formal analysis of the world’s languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture
    ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE RACIAL POLITICS OF CULTURE Lee D. Baker Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture Duke University Press Durham and London ( 2010 ) © 2010 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ∞ Designed by C. H. Westmoreland Typeset in Warnock with Magma Compact display by Achorn International, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book. Dedicated to WILLIAM A. LITTLE AND SABRINA L. THOMAS Contents Preface: Questions ix Acknowledgments xiii Introduction 1 (1) Research, Reform, and Racial Uplift 33 (2) Fabricating the Authentic and the Politics of the Real 66 (3) Race, Relevance, and Daniel G. Brinton’s Ill-Fated Bid for Prominence 117 (4) The Cult of Franz Boas and His “Conspiracy” to Destroy the White Race 156 Notes 221 Works Cited 235 Index 265 Preface Questions “Are you a hegro? I a hegro too. Are you a hegro?” My mother loves to recount the story of how, as a three year old, I used this innocent, mis­ pronounced question to interrogate the garbagemen as I furiously raced my Big Wheel up and down the driveway of our rather large house on Park Avenue, a beautiful tree-lined street in an all-white neighborhood in Yakima, Washington. It was 1969. The Vietnam War was raging in South- east Asia, and the brutal murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evers, and Bobby and John F. Kennedy hung like a pall over a nation coming to grips with new formulations, relations, and understand- ings of race, culture, and power.
    [Show full text]
  • Frameworks of Analysis
    PART I Frameworks of Analysis INTRODUCTION Tony Bennett then examine the forms of cultural analysis that have been associated It is clear from our discussion in the general with the development of psychological and introduction that it is impossible to tie the sociological thought. Peter Burke’s discussion term ‘culture’ to a single concept or to a of cultural history provides a bridge into simple history of usage. It is better understood the next group of chapters focused mainly as referencing a network of loosely related on text-based disciplines. James English’s concepts that has been shaped by the relations account of the role that the analysis of form between the different histories and fields of has played in the development of literary usage with which the term has came to be studies is followed here by Tia DeNora’s entangled. A significant factor here has been consideration of music as both text and the different meanings deriving from the ways performance. Mieke Bal then examines the in which the concept has been used and relations between art history and the more interpreted in the social science disciplines recent development of visual culture studies. one the one hand and in the humanities The next two chapters – Tom Gunning’s on the other. These different disciplinary discussion of film studies and Toby Miller’s articulations of the concept are the focus account of broadcasting – are concerned with of the contributions composing this first the forms of cultural analysis that have been part of the book, which also assesses how developed in relation to the two main media the ‘cultural turn’ has affected developments systems of the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Following Boas, Malinowski, Physics And
    History of Anthropology Newsletter Volume 39 Issue 2 December 2012 Article 3 January 2012 Conversions, Dreams, Defining Aims? ollowingF Boas, Malinowski, Physics and Anthropology, Through Laboratory and Field Richard Staley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Staley, Richard (2012) "Conversions, Dreams, Defining Aims? ollowingF Boas, Malinowski, Physics and Anthropology, Through Laboratory and Field," History of Anthropology Newsletter: Vol. 39 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol39/iss2/3 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol39/iss2/3 For more information, please contact [email protected]. History of Anthropology Newsletter 39.2 (December 2012) / 3 Conversions, Dreams, Defining Aims? Following Boas and Malinowski, Physics and Anthropology, through Laboratory and Field Richard Staley, University of Wisconsin–Madison, [email protected] Founding Figures Anthropology’s founding figures were academic travelers, who brought skills that were honed in a variety of fields to their new enterprise. Two such figures were Franz Boas, born in Minden, Westphalia in 1858, and Bronislaw Malinowski, born in Kraków, Galicia, in 1884. Both were recognized for helping to establish anthropology in their respective adopted homes of the United States and Britain. Both are associated with the development of participant observation, the fieldwork method requiring anthropologists to immerse themselves in the everyday lives of the peoples of other cultures.1 Both were initially trained in physics (amongst other subjects), and many historians stress that both traveled a considerable intellectual distance from the grounding their early work provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested by Our Readers
    History of Anthropology Newsletter Volume 26 Issue 2 December 1999 Article 8 January 1999 Suggested by Our Readers Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation (1999) "Suggested by Our Readers," History of Anthropology Newsletter: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 8. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol26/iss2/8 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol26/iss2/8 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kuper, Adam. 1999. Culture: The anthropologists' account. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [with emphasis on the work of Clifford Geertz, David Schneider, and Marshall Sahlins] Meijer, Miriam. 1999. Race and aesthetics in the anthropology of Petrus Camper (1722-1789). Amsterdam/Atlanta GA: Rodolphi. Speth, William. 1999. How it came to be: Carl 0. Sauer, Franz Boas, and the meanings of anthropogeography. Ellensburg, W A: Ephemera Press. Strong, Polly T. 1999. Captive selves, captivating others: The politics and poetics of colonial American captivity narratives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. IV. Suggested by our Readers [Although the subtitle does not indicate it, the assumption here is the same as in the preceding section: we list "recent" work-i.e., items appearing in the last several years. Entries without initials were contributed by G.W.S. Occasionally, readers call our attention to errors in the entries, usually of a minor typographical character. Typing the entries is a burdensome task (undertaken normally by G. W.S. ), and under the pressure of getting HAN out, some proofreading errors occasionally slip by.
    [Show full text]
  • Expressive Enlightenment: Subjectivity and Solidarity in Daniel Garrison Brinton, Franz Boas, and Carlos Montezuma
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research Queens College 2018 Expressive Enlightenment: Subjectivity and Solidarity in Daniel Garrison Brinton, Franz Boas, and Carlos Montezuma R. Arvo Carr CUNY Queens College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/qc_pubs/214 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Ryan Carr Expressive Enlightenment: Subjectivity and Solidarity in Daniel Garrison Brinton, Franz Boas, and Carlos Montezuma Forthcoming in Ned Blackhawk and Isaiah Wilner (eds.), Indigenous Visions: Rediscovering the World of Franz Boas (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017) In September 1899, a German journal of geography called Globus published an obituary for the American ethnologist Daniel Garrison Brinton. It was one of a handful of signed obituaries that its author, Franz Boas, would write in his long career. Boas concluded his words on Brinton with the following evaluation: The importance of his example for the development of American anthropology cannot be overstated. For many years, his voice was the only one that called us back from the excessive specialization that had begun to pose a threat to the general scientific point of view in itself. If anthropology is to find a firm footing in America, it is thanks in no small part to the labors of the deceased.1 Boas’s memorial to Brinton is a statement of devotion, an homage to a colleague who inspired and defended a collective scholarly enterprise—an “us” with which Boas clearly identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Determination IQ and Emotional Intelligence: Concepts For
    Self-determination IQ and Emotional Intelligence: Concepts for Identifying, Understanding and Developing Strategies to Deal with Cultural Competency, Diversity, Inclusion and Implicit Bias in Mediation The importance of addressing cultural competency, diversity and bias is to stress the need to become self-aware, create self-recognition, and proactively implement debiasing strategies and actions. As more individuals accept these premises, culture, society and group or organizational dynamics will also develop a stronger cultural competency, diversity and debiasing practices. Identifying, understanding and proactively acting upon issues of cultural diversity, inclusion and biases are fundamental to serving as a neutral mediator, charged with facilitating negotiations for parties in conflict in hopes of reaching a negotiated outcome – mediation. Mastering cultural competency and debiasing skills, at any level, like playing the piano, is not accomplished in one lesson. It is a conscious practice on a regular or daily basis, in an on-going manner. A cornerstone of mediation (facilitated negotiation) is “self-determination.” In fact, it is the first standard stated in the ABA Model Standards for Mediators (2005): STANDARD I. SELF-DETERMINATION A. A mediator shall conduct a mediation based on the principle of party self- determination. Self- determination is the act of coming to a voluntary, uncoerced decision in which each party makes free and informed choices as to process and outcome. Parties may exercise self-determination at any stage of a mediation, including mediator selection, process design, participation in or withdrawal from the process, and outcomes. 1. Although party self-determination for process design is a fundamental principle of mediation practice, a mediator may need to balance such party self-determination with a mediator’s duty to conduct a quality process in accordance with these Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Time Iterations: Familiarity, Horizons, and Pattern Among Finland’S Nuclear Waste Safety Experts
    Deep Time Iterations: Familiarity, Horizons, and Pattern Among Finland’s Nuclear Waste Safety Experts A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Vincent Francis Ialenti Cornell University Department of Anthropology December 2017 © Vincent Francis Ialenti ii Deep Time Iterations: Familiarity, Horizons, and Pattern Among Finland’s Nuclear Waste Safety Experts Vincent Francis Ialenti, PhD Cornell University 2017 This ethnography reconsiders nuclear waste risk’s deep time horizons’ often-sensationalized aesthetics of horror, sublimity, and awe. It does so by tracking how Finland’s nuclear energy and waste experts made visions of distant future Finlands appear more intelligible through mundane corporate, regulatory, financial, and technoscientific practices. Each chapter unpacks how informants iterated and reiterated traces of the very familiar to establish shared grounds of continuity for moving forward in time. Chapter 1 explores how Finland’s energy sector’s “mankala” cooperative corporate form was iterated and reiterated to give shape to political and financial time horizons. Chapter 2 explores how workplace role distinctions between recruit/retiree and junior/senior were iterated and reiterated to reckon nuclear personnel successions’ intergenerational horizons. Chapter 3 explores how input/output and part/whole distinctions were iterated and reiterated to help model distant future worlds in a portfolio of “Safety
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropologists and Their Traditions Across National Borders
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and University of Nebraska Press Chapters 2014 Anthropologists and Their rT aditions across National Borders Regna Darnell Frederic W. Gleach Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/unpresssamples Darnell, Regna and Gleach, Frederic W., "Anthropologists and Their rT aditions across National Borders" (2014). University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters. 285. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/unpresssamples/285 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Nebraska Press at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Anthropologists and Th eir Traditions across National Borders Buy the Book Histories of Anthropology Annual Editors Regna Darnell, University of Western Ontario Frederic W. Gleach, Cornell University Editorial Board Lee D. Baker, Duke University Alexei Elfi mov, Russian Academy of Sciences Paul A. Erickson, Saint Mary’s University Davydd J. Greenwood, Cornell University Abdellah Hammoudi, Princeton University Robert L. Hancock, Victoria, British Columbia Richard Handler, University of Virginia Curtis M. Hinsley, Northern Arizona University Jason Baird Jackson, Indiana University Christer Lindberg, Lund University Jonathan Marks, University of North Carolina,
    [Show full text]
  • German Contexts and Legacies in Anthropological Theory and Practice
    George W. Jr.. Stocking, ed.. Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. 358 pp. $24.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-299-14554-5. Reviewed by Deborah J. Cahalen Published on H-SAE (February, 2000) The subtitle of this edited volume suggests thropology, and other felds of study articulated that Franz Boas is the central fgure of concern during that time. here. This is rather misleading, as the focus of this The collection opens with a brief introduction (nevertheless excellent) book is more on the Ger‐ by George W. Stocking Jr., in which he outlines the man anthropological tradition than on Boas. Most debates surrounding the intellectual contribution of the essays involve him tangentially at best, with of Franz Boas to American anthropology -- did only the chapters by Liss, Jacknis and Berman Boas play a formative role in anthropological the‐ treating Boas directly. The rest of the text investi‐ ory, or was he merely a late arrival on the scene gates German perspectives on culture and science and an ahistorical particularist to boot? Exploring in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen‐ Boas's formative role, Stocking offers this collec‐ turies. tion as a kind of genealogical approach to under‐ This is really no setback to the merit of the standing Boas and the shaping of American an‐ book if you are interested in knowing more about thropology in relation to German traditions. the anthropological tradition in Germany at the Though Boas is not a major focus of every essay, turn of the last century, as the book considerably each author contributes to an understanding of advances our understanding of how German the practices of the time, the dominant and mi‐ thinkers from the nineteenth century interacted nority intellectual debates, histories of personali‐ with one another, and what currents of thought ties and institutions, methodologies, and political, on culture and science influenced Boas as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences
    2 The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences If . we were to treat Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa as uto- pia, not as ethnography, then we would understand it better and save a lot of pointless debate. (Robin Fox 1989, 3) Several writers have commented on the “radical changes” that occurred in the goals and methods of the social sciences consequent to the entry of Jews to these fields (Liebman 1973, 213; see also Degler 1991; Hollinger 1996; Horowitz 1993, 75; Rothman & Lichter 1982). Degler (1991, 188ff) notes that the shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences resulted from an ideological shift rather than from the emergence of any new empirical data. He also notes that Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental in the decline of Darwinism and other biological perspectives in American social science since the 1930s (p. 200). The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to Darwinism has long been noticed (Lenz 1931, 674; see also comments of John Maynard Smith in Lewin [1992, 43]).1 In sociology, the advent of Jewish intellectuals in the pre–World War II period resulted in “a level of politicization unknown to sociology’s founding fathers. It is not only that the names of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim replaced those of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, but also that the sense of America as a consensual experience gave way to a sense of America as a series of conflicting definitions” (Horowitz 1993, 75). In the post–World War II period, sociology “became populated by Jews to such a degree that jokes abounded: one did not need the synagogue, the minyan [i.e., the minimum number of Jews required for a communal religious service] was to be found in sociology departments; or, one did not need a sociology of Jewish life, since the two had become synonymous” (Horowitz 1993, 77).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnographic Art Worlds: the Creative Figuration of Art and Anthropology
    Ethnographic Art Worlds: The Creative Figuration of Art and Anthropology Silvy Chakkalakal ABSTRACT Between the 1920s and the 1940s, cultural anthropology in the United States—and Boas- ian anthropology in particular—appeared as a collaborative field connected to a social milieu of writers, musicians, filmmakers, dancers, and scholars from a variety of disciplines. My ar- ticle focuses on this broad network of people who worked on projects, discussed broader social questions, and developed methodological concepts. This collaborative field stemmed from a cultural milieu of intellectuals and artists who used the interdisciplinary space to reflect upon their own work and the society they lived in. I employ and widen Norbert Elias’s concept of figuration to focus on reciprocal relationships and exchange in order to understand the dynamic networks of art and anthropology between the 1920s and 1940s. By analyzing the entanglements between art and design, anthropology, sociology, literary culture, and pragma- tist philosophy, we can gain an understanding of the protagonists’ notions of aesthetics as a sensory, practical, and educative way of knowledge production. My figurational examination of the motif of anthropological gesture in the filmic work of Maya Deren, in Mead and Bates- on’s picture-ethnography Balinese Character (1942), and in Bateson’s and Xanti Schawinsky’s MOMA exhibition Bali, Background for War (1943), illuminates how art and anthropology become inextricable. 1 Thinking in Figuration Between the 1920s and the 1940s, cultural anthropology—and Boasian an- thropology in particular—appeared as a collaborative field connected to a social milieu of writers, musicians, filmmakers, dancers, and scholars from a variety of disciplines.
    [Show full text]