ConclusionsThe followers of Foucault, Edward Said, and JohannesFabian  terjemahan - ConclusionsThe followers of Foucault, Edward Said, and JohannesFabian  Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

ConclusionsThe followers of Foucaul

Conclusions
The followers of Foucault, Edward Said, and Johannes
Fabian have managed to do to anthropology what Said
says Westerners have done to the Orient or to the Other:
invent something that never existed in order to dominate
it. Their version of anthropology their invented anthropology
has served to "otherize" and marginalize anthropologists
and anthropological knowledge. (I might say
that it had disempowered anthropology, but since when
did it have power [pace Fabian 1983]?) The result of this,
unless the process is arrested, will be a serious loss of a
large part of an important field of knowledge, to the detriment
of those who want to learn about human behavior.
Ironically, there is probably much less disagreement
about certain basic values and principles between the old time
practitioners of anthropology and many of their critics
than the critics have led us to believe. Both groups
would say that they believe in the importance and validity
of viewing and treating all peoples equally and with dignity;
there is explicit belief in the need to include history;
neither group sees cultures as isolated and unique; many
want to avoid reifying, homogenizing, and totalizing ';culture."
(See Brightman 1995 on "the imminent demise of
culture.") The problem is that the critics are either ignorant
of the common ground we share or are willfully distorting
the past for their own advantage. By making it
seem that an earlier anthropology regularly violated these
principles, the critics have delegitimized the field and discouraged
newcomers from benefiting from the many lessons
it has to teach about the world.
Perhaps there is nothing that can be done. Perhaps we
old-time anthropologists will simply have to accept what
seems to us as the inevitable decline of the world, or at
least of our world. But intellectual perspectives and fashions
come and go, and this current fashion will also soon
pass. There are already signs of fatigue and a coming reevaluation.
And when this happens there will still be a
need to deal with the most basic questions of human nature
and culture.
It is likely that there will be a return to many of the same
topics and approaches that marked our discipline in earlier
periods, and that the experiences and ideas of earlier generations
will still have a vital role to play. Those of us who
remember a time when a more or less unified field made
the sympathetic study of human behavior, in all its local
manifestations, the center of our holistic discipline have
an obligation to speak out to correct the distortions of the
record. Even more important, however, is to let the next
generation know of the value of the great corpus of anthropological
work that is available to them when the time
comes that they are once again interested in these problems
and approaches.
Those of us who studied anthropology before 1960
learned respect for other peoples and cultures. We learned
of the need to look at history and to consider the connections
among peoples, cultures, and institutions. But we
were also taught respect for the pragmatic, pluralistic, and
communal quest for knowledge, including that form we
call ;'science" (cf. Bernstein 1992:323-340). I believe it is
time for a reorientation of the dominant intellectual style
of the past three decades in anthropology. It is time to turn
away from a view of humanity that sees everything in
terms of a Nietzschean will-to-power, to return to our true
roots in both humanism and science. We might begin by
taking a fresh look into the ideas and substantive accomplishments of our fallible struggling predecessors in the
field of anthropology.
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
KesimpulanPara pengikut Foucault, Edward Said dan JohannesFabian telah berhasil dilakukan kepada Antropologi Said apamengatakan Barat telah dilakukan di Timur atau yang lain:menciptakan sesuatu yang tidak pernah ada untuk mendominasiitu. Versi mereka antropologi antropologi mereka diciptakantelah melayani untuk "otherize" dan meminggirkan antropologdan Antropologi pengetahuan. (Saya mungkin mengatakanbahwa ia telah tidak berdaya antropologi, tapi sejak Kapantidak memiliki kekuatan [kecepatan Fabian 1983]?) Hasil ini,kecuali proses ditangkap, akan kehilangan seriussebagian besar dari bidang yang penting pengetahuan, yang merugikanorang-orang yang ingin belajar tentang perilaku manusia.Ironisnya, ada ketidaksepakatan mungkin lebih sedikittentang nilai-nilai dasar dan prinsip-prinsip antara waktu lama tertentupraktisi Antropologi dan banyak kritik merekadaripada para kritikus telah menyebabkan kita untuk percaya. Kedua kelompokakan mengatakan bahwa mereka percaya pada pentingnya dan validitasmelihat dan memperlakukan semua orang sama dan dengan martabat;ada kepercayaan yang eksplisit dalam kebutuhan untuk mencakup sejarah;kelompok tidak melihat budaya sebagai terisolasi dan unik; banyakingin menghindari reifying, menyeragam dan totalizing '; budaya. "(Lihat Brightman 1995 "kematian dekatbudaya.") Masalahnya adalah bahwa kritik yang baik bodohkesamaan kita berbagi atau sengaja mendistorsimasa lalu untuk keuntungan mereka sendiri. Dengan membuatnyatampak bahwa antropologi sebelumnya secara teratur melanggar iniprinsip-prinsip, para kritikus memiliki delegitimized bidang dan berkecil hatipendatang baru dari mendapatkan manfaat dari banyak pelajaranitu harus mengajarkan tentang dunia.Mungkin tidak ada yang dapat dilakukan. Mungkin kitaantropolog tua hanya perlu menerima apatampaknya kita sebagai penurunan tak terelakkan di dunia, atau disedikit di dunia kita. Tapi perspektif intelektual dan modedatang dan pergi, dan cara ini saat ini akan juga segeralulus. Sudah ada tanda-tanda kelelahan dan reevaluasi mendatang.Dan ketika hal ini terjadi akan masih adaperlu berurusan dengan pertanyaan paling dasar sifat manusiadan budaya.Kemungkinan bahwa akan ada kembali ke banyak yang samatopik dan pendekatan yang ditandai kami disiplin dalam sebelumnyaperiode, dan bahwa pengalaman dan ide-ide generasi sebelumnyamasih akan memiliki peran penting untuk bermain. Orang-orang yangingat waktu ketika membuat Medan lebih atau kurang terpadusimpatik studi tentang perilaku manusia, dalam semua lokal yangmanifestasi, Pusat disiplin holistik kita memilikikewajiban untuk berbicara keluar untuk memperbaiki distorsiCatatan. Bahkan lebih penting, bagaimanapun, adalah untuk membiarkan berikutnyagenerasi tahu nilai corpus besar antropologipekerjaan yang tersedia bagi mereka ketika waktudatang bahwa mereka tertarik sekali lagi masalah inidan pendekatan.Mereka yang belajar antropologi sebelum 1960belajar menghormati adat dan budaya lain. Kita belajarkebutuhan untuk melihat sejarah dan mempertimbangkan hubungandi antara masyarakat, budaya, dan lembaga-lembaga. Tapi kamijuga diajar menghormati pragmatis, pluralistik, dankomunal pencarian pengetahuan, termasuk yang membentuk kitapanggilan;'ilmu"(cf. Bernstein 1992:323-340). Saya percaya itu adalahwaktu untuk reorientasi intelektual gaya dominandari selama tiga dekade dalam antropologi. Saatnya untuk mengubahdari pandangan dari umat manusia yang melihat segala sesuatu dalampersyaratan Nietzschean akan tenaga, untuk kembali ke benar kamiakar dalam humanisme dan ilmu pengetahuan. Kita mungkin mulai denganmengambil tampilan baru ke ide-ide dan substantif prestasi pendahulu berjuang kami keliru dalambidang antropologi.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
Conclusions
The followers of Foucault, Edward Said, and Johannes
Fabian have managed to do to anthropology what Said
says Westerners have done to the Orient or to the Other:
invent something that never existed in order to dominate
it. Their version of anthropology their invented anthropology
has served to "otherize" and marginalize anthropologists
and anthropological knowledge. (I might say
that it had disempowered anthropology, but since when
did it have power [pace Fabian 1983]?) The result of this,
unless the process is arrested, will be a serious loss of a
large part of an important field of knowledge, to the detriment
of those who want to learn about human behavior.
Ironically, there is probably much less disagreement
about certain basic values and principles between the old time
practitioners of anthropology and many of their critics
than the critics have led us to believe. Both groups
would say that they believe in the importance and validity
of viewing and treating all peoples equally and with dignity;
there is explicit belief in the need to include history;
neither group sees cultures as isolated and unique; many
want to avoid reifying, homogenizing, and totalizing ';culture."
(See Brightman 1995 on "the imminent demise of
culture.") The problem is that the critics are either ignorant
of the common ground we share or are willfully distorting
the past for their own advantage. By making it
seem that an earlier anthropology regularly violated these
principles, the critics have delegitimized the field and discouraged
newcomers from benefiting from the many lessons
it has to teach about the world.
Perhaps there is nothing that can be done. Perhaps we
old-time anthropologists will simply have to accept what
seems to us as the inevitable decline of the world, or at
least of our world. But intellectual perspectives and fashions
come and go, and this current fashion will also soon
pass. There are already signs of fatigue and a coming reevaluation.
And when this happens there will still be a
need to deal with the most basic questions of human nature
and culture.
It is likely that there will be a return to many of the same
topics and approaches that marked our discipline in earlier
periods, and that the experiences and ideas of earlier generations
will still have a vital role to play. Those of us who
remember a time when a more or less unified field made
the sympathetic study of human behavior, in all its local
manifestations, the center of our holistic discipline have
an obligation to speak out to correct the distortions of the
record. Even more important, however, is to let the next
generation know of the value of the great corpus of anthropological
work that is available to them when the time
comes that they are once again interested in these problems
and approaches.
Those of us who studied anthropology before 1960
learned respect for other peoples and cultures. We learned
of the need to look at history and to consider the connections
among peoples, cultures, and institutions. But we
were also taught respect for the pragmatic, pluralistic, and
communal quest for knowledge, including that form we
call ;'science" (cf. Bernstein 1992:323-340). I believe it is
time for a reorientation of the dominant intellectual style
of the past three decades in anthropology. It is time to turn
away from a view of humanity that sees everything in
terms of a Nietzschean will-to-power, to return to our true
roots in both humanism and science. We might begin by
taking a fresh look into the ideas and substantive accomplishments of our fallible struggling predecessors in the
field of anthropology.
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.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: