- Teks
- Sejarah
What Keesing has done here is to at
What Keesing has done here is to attribute to anthropology
in general what is actually the perspective of an influential
group of post-1970s critics of "traditional" anthropology.
An insistence upon the incommensurability of
cultures may be basic to Geertz, Clifford, Rabinow,
Rosaldo, Tyler, and other recent writers, themselves critics
of the Enlightenment view. It is quite uncharacteristic
of the major trends in anthropological research and writing
throughout the past century. We could dismiss Keesing's
remark as an eccentricity if it weren't so widely believed
and repeated today.
In fact, the origins of Western social science are in the
Enlightenment, and uniformitarianism was one of the
foremost guiding principles of Enlightenment thought as
anti-Enlightenment critics of anthropology realize (cf.
Geertz 1973:3>35). Indeed Arthur O. Lovejoy, once the
leading historian of ideas in America, wrote:
1. Uniformitarianism. This is the first and fundamental
principle of this general and pervasive philosophy of the Enlightenment.
The reason, it is assumed to be evident,is identical in all men; and the life of reason therefore it, is tacitly or explicitly inferred, must admit of no diversity.... Anything of which the intelligibility,verifiability,or actual affirmation is
limited to men of a special age,race,temperament,tradition,
or condition is eo ipso without truth value,or at all events
without importance to a reasonable man.[ 1948:79-80]
The idea that the different peoples of the world were
radically different from each other was quite contrary to
the thought of such writers as Voltaire, Kant, Hume, and
Francis Hutcheson. Said Voltaire ([1738]1963:26>
261), "Man in general has always been what he is now.
This does not mean that he has always had fine cities,
twenty-four-pounder cannons, comic operas and convents
full of nuns. But he has always had the same instinct
which leads him to find satisfaction in himself, in the companion
of his pleasures, in his children, in his grandchildren
and in the work of his hands."
And David Hume wrote,
It is universally acknowledged that there is a great uniformity
among the actions of men in all nations and ages and that human nature remains till the same in its principles and options.
The same motives always produce the same actions: the same
events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love,
vanity,friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society,
have been from the beginning of the world and still are the
source of all the actions and enterprises which have ever been
observed among mankind.... Mankind are so much the same
in all times and places that history inform us of nothing new
or strange in this particular[(.1 777)1965:10$105]
(Hutcheson heaps scorn on those who try to shock with accounts
of the strangeness of others while ignoring all that
is so much the same ([ 17381 1967:39-40.)
Where, in these characteristic Enlightenment statements,
do we see the presumed need for radical alterity in
this central Western intellectual tradition to which we are,
for better or worse, the heirs? Now, one need not go as far as CliffordG eertzh as in questioning Enlightenment unifornitarianism and "anti-relativism"(1 973, 1984) in order
to doubt, or be disturbed or amused by, the unifortnitarian claims of these eighteenth-century writers. But how can today's anthropologists ignore the pervasiveness of
the idea of the sameness of humanity as one of the most important intellectual traditions of "the West"?
in general what is actually the perspective of an influential
group of post-1970s critics of "traditional" anthropology.
An insistence upon the incommensurability of
cultures may be basic to Geertz, Clifford, Rabinow,
Rosaldo, Tyler, and other recent writers, themselves critics
of the Enlightenment view. It is quite uncharacteristic
of the major trends in anthropological research and writing
throughout the past century. We could dismiss Keesing's
remark as an eccentricity if it weren't so widely believed
and repeated today.
In fact, the origins of Western social science are in the
Enlightenment, and uniformitarianism was one of the
foremost guiding principles of Enlightenment thought as
anti-Enlightenment critics of anthropology realize (cf.
Geertz 1973:3>35). Indeed Arthur O. Lovejoy, once the
leading historian of ideas in America, wrote:
1. Uniformitarianism. This is the first and fundamental
principle of this general and pervasive philosophy of the Enlightenment.
The reason, it is assumed to be evident,is identical in all men; and the life of reason therefore it, is tacitly or explicitly inferred, must admit of no diversity.... Anything of which the intelligibility,verifiability,or actual affirmation is
limited to men of a special age,race,temperament,tradition,
or condition is eo ipso without truth value,or at all events
without importance to a reasonable man.[ 1948:79-80]
The idea that the different peoples of the world were
radically different from each other was quite contrary to
the thought of such writers as Voltaire, Kant, Hume, and
Francis Hutcheson. Said Voltaire ([1738]1963:26>
261), "Man in general has always been what he is now.
This does not mean that he has always had fine cities,
twenty-four-pounder cannons, comic operas and convents
full of nuns. But he has always had the same instinct
which leads him to find satisfaction in himself, in the companion
of his pleasures, in his children, in his grandchildren
and in the work of his hands."
And David Hume wrote,
It is universally acknowledged that there is a great uniformity
among the actions of men in all nations and ages and that human nature remains till the same in its principles and options.
The same motives always produce the same actions: the same
events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love,
vanity,friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society,
have been from the beginning of the world and still are the
source of all the actions and enterprises which have ever been
observed among mankind.... Mankind are so much the same
in all times and places that history inform us of nothing new
or strange in this particular[(.1 777)1965:10$105]
(Hutcheson heaps scorn on those who try to shock with accounts
of the strangeness of others while ignoring all that
is so much the same ([ 17381 1967:39-40.)
Where, in these characteristic Enlightenment statements,
do we see the presumed need for radical alterity in
this central Western intellectual tradition to which we are,
for better or worse, the heirs? Now, one need not go as far as CliffordG eertzh as in questioning Enlightenment unifornitarianism and "anti-relativism"(1 973, 1984) in order
to doubt, or be disturbed or amused by, the unifortnitarian claims of these eighteenth-century writers. But how can today's anthropologists ignore the pervasiveness of
the idea of the sameness of humanity as one of the most important intellectual traditions of "the West"?
0/5000
What Keesing has done here is to attribute to anthropologyin general what is actually the perspective of an influentialgroup of post-1970s critics of "traditional" anthropology.An insistence upon the incommensurability ofcultures may be basic to Geertz, Clifford, Rabinow,Rosaldo, Tyler, and other recent writers, themselves criticsof the Enlightenment view. It is quite uncharacteristicof the major trends in anthropological research and writingthroughout the past century. We could dismiss Keesing'sremark as an eccentricity if it weren't so widely believedand repeated today.In fact, the origins of Western social science are in theEnlightenment, and uniformitarianism was one of theforemost guiding principles of Enlightenment thought asanti-Enlightenment critics of anthropology realize (cf.Geertz 1973:3>35). Indeed Arthur O. Lovejoy, once theleading historian of ideas in America, wrote:1. Uniformitarianism. This is the first and fundamentalprinciple of this general and pervasive philosophy of the Enlightenment.The reason, it is assumed to be evident,is identical in all men; and the life of reason therefore it, is tacitly or explicitly inferred, must admit of no diversity.... Anything of which the intelligibility,verifiability,or actual affirmation islimited to men of a special age,race,temperament,tradition,or condition is eo ipso without truth value,or at all eventswithout importance to a reasonable man.[ 1948:79-80]The idea that the different peoples of the world wereradically different from each other was quite contrary tothe thought of such writers as Voltaire, Kant, Hume, andFrancis Hutcheson. Said Voltaire ([1738]1963:26>261), "Man in general has always been what he is now.This does not mean that he has always had fine cities,twenty-four-pounder cannons, comic operas and conventsfull of nuns. But he has always had the same instinctwhich leads him to find satisfaction in himself, in the companionof his pleasures, in his children, in his grandchildrenand in the work of his hands."And David Hume wrote,It is universally acknowledged that there is a great uniformityamong the actions of men in all nations and ages and that human nature remains till the same in its principles and options.The same motives always produce the same actions: the sameevents follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love,vanity,friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society,have been from the beginning of the world and still are thesource of all the actions and enterprises which have ever beenobserved among mankind.... Mankind are so much the samein all times and places that history inform us of nothing newor strange in this particular[(.1 777)1965:10$105](Hutcheson heaps scorn on those who try to shock with accountsof the strangeness of others while ignoring all thatis so much the same ([ 17381 1967:39-40.)Where, in these characteristic Enlightenment statements,do we see the presumed need for radical alterity inthis central Western intellectual tradition to which we are,for better or worse, the heirs? Now, one need not go as far as CliffordG eertzh as in questioning Enlightenment unifornitarianism and "anti-relativism"(1 973, 1984) in orderto doubt, or be disturbed or amused by, the unifortnitarian claims of these eighteenth-century writers. But how can today's anthropologists ignore the pervasiveness ofthe idea of the sameness of humanity as one of the most important intellectual traditions of "the West"?
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Apa Keesing telah dilakukan di sini adalah untuk atribut untuk antropologi
secara umum apa yang sebenarnya perspektif seorang berpengaruh
kelompok pasca-1970 pengkritik "tradisional" antropologi.
Sebuah desakan atas dapat dibandingkan dari
budaya mungkin dasar Geertz, Clifford, Rabinow,
Rosaldo , Tyler, dan penulis baru lainnya, mereka kritik
dari pandangan Pencerahan. Hal ini cukup seperti biasanya
dari tren utama dalam penelitian antropologi dan menulis
sepanjang abad terakhir. Kita bisa mengabaikan Keesing ini
komentar sebagai eksentrisitas jika itu tidak begitu luas diyakini
dan diulang hari ini.
Bahkan, asal-usul ilmu sosial Barat berada di
Pencerahan, dan uniformitarianisme adalah salah satu
prinsip-prinsip utama dari Pencerahan pikir
anti-Pencerahan kritikus antropologi menyadari (lih
Geertz 1973: 3> 35). Memang Arthur O. Lovejoy, setelah
sejarawan terkemuka ide di Amerika, menulis:
1. Uniformitarianisme. Ini adalah yang pertama dan mendasar
prinsip ini filsafat umum dan meresap Pencerahan.
Alasannya, diasumsikan menjadi jelas, identik dalam semua orang; dan kehidupan alasan karena itu, adalah diam-diam atau eksplisit disimpulkan, harus mengakui tidak ada keragaman .... Apa pun yang kejelasan, pemastian, atau penegasan sebenarnya
terbatas pada laki-laki dari usia khusus, ras, temperamen, tradisi,
atau Kondisi ini eo ipso tanpa nilai kebenaran, atau setidak-tidaknya
tanpa penting bagi seorang pria yang wajar [1948: 79-80].
Gagasan bahwa orang-orang yang berbeda di dunia yang
secara radikal berbeda satu sama lain cukup bertentangan dengan
pemikiran penulis seperti sebagai Voltaire, Kant, Hume, dan
Francis Hutcheson. Kata Voltaire ([1738] 1963: 26>
261)., "Man pada umumnya selalu apa dia sekarang
ini tidak berarti bahwa ia selalu memiliki kota baik-baik saja,
meriam dua puluh empat pon, opera komik dan biara
penuh biarawati. Tapi dia selalu memiliki naluri yang sama
yang mendorongnya untuk menemukan kepuasan dalam dirinya, dalam pendamping
kesenangan, dalam anak-anaknya, cucu-cucunya di
dan dalam pekerjaan tangannya. "
Dan David Hume menulis,
Hal ini universal mengakui bahwa ada keseragaman besar
di antara tindakan manusia di seluruh bangsa dan usia dan bahwa sifat manusia tetap sampai sama dalam prinsip-prinsip dan pilihan.
Motif yang sama selalu menghasilkan tindakan yang sama: sama
peristiwa mengikuti dari penyebab yang sama. Ambisi, ketamakan, cinta-diri,
kesombongan, persahabatan, kemurahan hati, semangat publik; Kesukaan ini dicampur dalam berbagai derajat, dan didistribusikan melalui masyarakat,
telah dari awal dunia dan masih merupakan
sumber dari semua tindakan dan perusahaan yang pernah
diamati di antara umat manusia .... Manusia begitu banyak yang sama
di semua waktu dan tempat bahwa sejarah menginformasikan kepada kami hal yang baru
atau aneh dalam hal ini khususnya [1965 (1 777.): 10 $ 105]
(Hutcheson tumpukan cemoohan pada mereka yang mencoba untuk mengejutkan dengan akun
dari keanehan lain sementara mengabaikan semua yang
begitu banyak sama ([17381 1967:. 39-40)
Di mana, dalam laporan Pencerahan karakteristik ini,
kita melihat kebutuhan diduga untuk alteritas radikal dalam
tradisi intelektual Barat ini pusat yang kita,
? untuk lebih baik atau lebih buruk, ahli waris Sekarang, tidak perlu pergi sejauh CliffordG eertzh seperti dalam mempertanyakan Pencerahan unifornitarianism dan "anti-relativisme" (1 973, 1984) dalam rangka
untuk meragukan, atau terganggu atau geli oleh, klaim unifortnitarian penulis abad kedelapan belas ini. Tapi bagaimana dapat antropolog hari ini mengabaikan kegunaan dari
gagasan kesamaan kemanusiaan sebagai salah satu tradisi intelektual yang paling penting dari "Barat"?
secara umum apa yang sebenarnya perspektif seorang berpengaruh
kelompok pasca-1970 pengkritik "tradisional" antropologi.
Sebuah desakan atas dapat dibandingkan dari
budaya mungkin dasar Geertz, Clifford, Rabinow,
Rosaldo , Tyler, dan penulis baru lainnya, mereka kritik
dari pandangan Pencerahan. Hal ini cukup seperti biasanya
dari tren utama dalam penelitian antropologi dan menulis
sepanjang abad terakhir. Kita bisa mengabaikan Keesing ini
komentar sebagai eksentrisitas jika itu tidak begitu luas diyakini
dan diulang hari ini.
Bahkan, asal-usul ilmu sosial Barat berada di
Pencerahan, dan uniformitarianisme adalah salah satu
prinsip-prinsip utama dari Pencerahan pikir
anti-Pencerahan kritikus antropologi menyadari (lih
Geertz 1973: 3> 35). Memang Arthur O. Lovejoy, setelah
sejarawan terkemuka ide di Amerika, menulis:
1. Uniformitarianisme. Ini adalah yang pertama dan mendasar
prinsip ini filsafat umum dan meresap Pencerahan.
Alasannya, diasumsikan menjadi jelas, identik dalam semua orang; dan kehidupan alasan karena itu, adalah diam-diam atau eksplisit disimpulkan, harus mengakui tidak ada keragaman .... Apa pun yang kejelasan, pemastian, atau penegasan sebenarnya
terbatas pada laki-laki dari usia khusus, ras, temperamen, tradisi,
atau Kondisi ini eo ipso tanpa nilai kebenaran, atau setidak-tidaknya
tanpa penting bagi seorang pria yang wajar [1948: 79-80].
Gagasan bahwa orang-orang yang berbeda di dunia yang
secara radikal berbeda satu sama lain cukup bertentangan dengan
pemikiran penulis seperti sebagai Voltaire, Kant, Hume, dan
Francis Hutcheson. Kata Voltaire ([1738] 1963: 26>
261)., "Man pada umumnya selalu apa dia sekarang
ini tidak berarti bahwa ia selalu memiliki kota baik-baik saja,
meriam dua puluh empat pon, opera komik dan biara
penuh biarawati. Tapi dia selalu memiliki naluri yang sama
yang mendorongnya untuk menemukan kepuasan dalam dirinya, dalam pendamping
kesenangan, dalam anak-anaknya, cucu-cucunya di
dan dalam pekerjaan tangannya. "
Dan David Hume menulis,
Hal ini universal mengakui bahwa ada keseragaman besar
di antara tindakan manusia di seluruh bangsa dan usia dan bahwa sifat manusia tetap sampai sama dalam prinsip-prinsip dan pilihan.
Motif yang sama selalu menghasilkan tindakan yang sama: sama
peristiwa mengikuti dari penyebab yang sama. Ambisi, ketamakan, cinta-diri,
kesombongan, persahabatan, kemurahan hati, semangat publik; Kesukaan ini dicampur dalam berbagai derajat, dan didistribusikan melalui masyarakat,
telah dari awal dunia dan masih merupakan
sumber dari semua tindakan dan perusahaan yang pernah
diamati di antara umat manusia .... Manusia begitu banyak yang sama
di semua waktu dan tempat bahwa sejarah menginformasikan kepada kami hal yang baru
atau aneh dalam hal ini khususnya [1965 (1 777.): 10 $ 105]
(Hutcheson tumpukan cemoohan pada mereka yang mencoba untuk mengejutkan dengan akun
dari keanehan lain sementara mengabaikan semua yang
begitu banyak sama ([17381 1967:. 39-40)
Di mana, dalam laporan Pencerahan karakteristik ini,
kita melihat kebutuhan diduga untuk alteritas radikal dalam
tradisi intelektual Barat ini pusat yang kita,
? untuk lebih baik atau lebih buruk, ahli waris Sekarang, tidak perlu pergi sejauh CliffordG eertzh seperti dalam mempertanyakan Pencerahan unifornitarianism dan "anti-relativisme" (1 973, 1984) dalam rangka
untuk meragukan, atau terganggu atau geli oleh, klaim unifortnitarian penulis abad kedelapan belas ini. Tapi bagaimana dapat antropolog hari ini mengabaikan kegunaan dari
gagasan kesamaan kemanusiaan sebagai salah satu tradisi intelektual yang paling penting dari "Barat"?
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- Act
- A number of high profile corporate scand
- Selamat ulang tahun
- Kamu lagi apa
- Delicate
- Saya tidak akan melakukan kesalahan ini
- Act out a5 if you has got a toothache
- Terulang lagi
- Apakah saya boleh telephone
- dia akan mengontrol pekerjaannya besok
- Act out a5 if you has got a toothache
- Apakah kamu sudah menikah ?
- Apakah saya boleh telephone kamu
- Tersayang
- Aku cinta kamu selamanya
- A number of high profile corporate scand
- apa kabar sayang hehehe saya mau belajar
- A number of high profile corporate scand
- Have you ever got a toothache
- A number of high profile corporate scand
- Have you ever got a toothache
- Kamu lagi apa
- Act
- Is you who are in the deepest of my hear
