The three claims I discuss can be found in concise andexplicit form in terjemahan - The three claims I discuss can be found in concise andexplicit form in Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

The three claims I discuss can be f

The three claims I discuss can be found in concise and
explicit form in a recent article by Roger M. Keesing
(1994), published in a volume with contributions from
many distinguished anthropologists (Borofsky 1993).
Roger Keesing was a major contributor to anthropology
over the past few decades and his writing could often serve
as a weathervane. In this case he stated the new conventional
wisdom very clearly.


1. According to Keesing's critique: anthropology
treats the peoples it studies as "radically alter," not to
be understood in the same ways that we understand ourselves.
"If radical alterity did not exist, it wouZd be anthropology's
project to invent it." Radical alterity, he writes,
"a culturally constructed Other radically different from
Us fills a need in European social thought.... I believe
we continue to overstate Difference, in search for the exotic
and for the radical Otherness Western philosophy,
and Western cravings for alternatives, demand" (p. 301,
emphasis added). Since Edward Said's book, Orientalism
(1978), this sort of critique has been widely accepted as
true. Elsewhere Keesing (1990:168) speaks of"anthropology's
Orientalist project of representing Otherness."
Said's projects eems to have succeeded remarkably well.
It is not easy to disabuse graduate students of the notion
that anthropologists study only the exotic, the Other, even
by reading to them lists of Ph.D. dissertations or titles of
papers at AAA meetings that focus on peoples and topics
very close to home.

Here is another example, from Arturo Escobar's summary
of Lila Abu-Lughod's position on culture (Abu-
Lughod 1991):
To the extent that the culture concept has been the primaxy
tool for making the other and for maintaining a hierarchical
system of differences, we must direct our creative efforts
against his concept, she prescribes, by "writing against culture."
We need to look at similarities, not only at differences;
by emphasizing connections, we also undermine the idea of
'total' cultures and peoples.... Can we emphasize not
boundedness and separateness but connections?[Escobar
1993:381]

I shall argue that lines like these do great injustice to the
actual history and nature of our field.

2. Keesing contends that anthropology has always
been a historical. According to Keesing, "The world of
timeless, endlessly self-reproducing structures, social and
ideational, each representing a unique experiment in cultural
possibility, has (we now know) been fashioned in
terns of European philosophical quests and assumptions,
superimposed on the peoples encountered and subjugated along colonial frontiers"(p.301;cf.Dirksl992:3-4; Wallerstein
1996). Johannes Fabian's book Time and the
Other:H owA nthropology akesI ts Object( 1983),is the
text of choice here, with its claim that anthropologists
dominate by denying coevalness, contemporaneity, to the
exotic Others whom we study, our "Objects" (no longer
our "Subjects").


3. Roger Keesing claimed that anthropologists treated
each culture as an isolated unit, unconnected to any
others. "Their cultures are hermetically sealed, beyond
the reaches of time and the world system," he says (p.
306).

306).
This is so much a part of the current discourse that Andre
GunderFrank( 1990), scorning "traditional" anthropology
at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the AAA, claimed
that Boas's study of the designs on Eskimo needle cases
(Boas 1908) was designed to show the "separateness of
cultures" (emphasis added). That Frank did not know
what Boas's paper is actually about is unimportant; what
is disturbing is that he could make such a statement before
a hall full of anthropologists and remain unchallenged

Keesing goes on to decry those who "edit out Christianity,
trade stores, labor migration, contemporary politics
and cash economy . . ." in accounts of his ethnographic
area, Melanesia (p. 306).

Lest it be thought that these claims about anthropology
are idiosyncratic and uncharacteristic, Terence Turner has
enunciated a similar set of charges. Turner writes of (a)
"the chronic anthropological tendency. . . to focus on cultures as discrete units in isolation";and( b) "that endencies
. to treat culture as an autonomous domain, e.g., as 'systems
of symbols and meanings' essentially unconditioned
by material, social, and political processes, and the concomitant
abstraction of cultural change from political or
social relations,particularly relations of inequality,domination,
and exploitation" (Turner 1993:415). Elsewhere
(1991:292) he speaks of anthropology as having "defined
itself in abstraction from the 'situation of contact,' as the
antithesis of 'change' and the enemy of 'history.' "

These sorts of claims are by now so widespread, so
taken for granted, such a natural part of the intellectual
landscape, that they appear as basic truths. We find them
repeated in book reviews in The New York Times and The
New Yorker as well as in the writings of students and established anthropologists. And yet they are so far from the actual history and nature of our field that it should raise serious questions about the sociology of knowledge and the development and spread of ideas.

I shall consider each of Keesing's critiques in turn.
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
The three claims I discuss can be found in concise andexplicit form in a recent article by Roger M. Keesing(1994), published in a volume with contributions frommany distinguished anthropologists (Borofsky 1993).Roger Keesing was a major contributor to anthropologyover the past few decades and his writing could often serveas a weathervane. In this case he stated the new conventionalwisdom very clearly.1. According to Keesing's critique: anthropologytreats the peoples it studies as "radically alter," not tobe understood in the same ways that we understand ourselves."If radical alterity did not exist, it wouZd be anthropology'sproject to invent it." Radical alterity, he writes,"a culturally constructed Other radically different fromUs fills a need in European social thought.... I believewe continue to overstate Difference, in search for the exoticand for the radical Otherness Western philosophy,and Western cravings for alternatives, demand" (p. 301,emphasis added). Since Edward Said's book, Orientalism(1978), this sort of critique has been widely accepted astrue. Elsewhere Keesing (1990:168) speaks of"anthropology'sOrientalist project of representing Otherness."Said's projects eems to have succeeded remarkably well.It is not easy to disabuse graduate students of the notionthat anthropologists study only the exotic, the Other, evenby reading to them lists of Ph.D. dissertations or titles ofpapers at AAA meetings that focus on peoples and topicsvery close to home.Here is another example, from Arturo Escobar's summaryof Lila Abu-Lughod's position on culture (Abu-Lughod 1991):To the extent that the culture concept has been the primaxytool for making the other and for maintaining a hierarchicalsystem of differences, we must direct our creative effortsagainst his concept, she prescribes, by "writing against culture."We need to look at similarities, not only at differences;by emphasizing connections, we also undermine the idea of'total' cultures and peoples.... Can we emphasize notboundedness and separateness but connections?[Escobar1993:381]I shall argue that lines like these do great injustice to theactual history and nature of our field.2. Keesing contends that anthropology has alwaysbeen a historical. According to Keesing, "The world oftimeless, endlessly self-reproducing structures, social andideational, each representing a unique experiment in culturalpossibility, has (we now know) been fashioned interns of European philosophical quests and assumptions,superimposed on the peoples encountered and subjugated along colonial frontiers"(p.301;cf.Dirksl992:3-4; Wallerstein1996). Johannes Fabian's book Time and theOther:H owA nthropology akesI ts Object( 1983),is thetext of choice here, with its claim that anthropologistsdominate by denying coevalness, contemporaneity, to theexotic Others whom we study, our "Objects" (no longerour "Subjects").3. Roger Keesing claimed that anthropologists treatedeach culture as an isolated unit, unconnected to anyothers. "Their cultures are hermetically sealed, beyondthe reaches of time and the world system," he says (p.306).306).This is so much a part of the current discourse that AndreGunderFrank( 1990), scorning "traditional" anthropologyat the 1990 Annual Meeting of the AAA, claimedthat Boas's study of the designs on Eskimo needle cases(Boas 1908) was designed to show the "separateness ofcultures" (emphasis added). That Frank did not knowwhat Boas's paper is actually about is unimportant; whatis disturbing is that he could make such a statement beforea hall full of anthropologists and remain unchallengedKeesing goes on to decry those who "edit out Christianity,trade stores, labor migration, contemporary politicsand cash economy . . ." in accounts of his ethnographicarea, Melanesia (p. 306).Lest it be thought that these claims about anthropologyare idiosyncratic and uncharacteristic, Terence Turner hasenunciated a similar set of charges. Turner writes of (a)"the chronic anthropological tendency. . . to focus on cultures as discrete units in isolation";and( b) "that endencies. to treat culture as an autonomous domain, e.g., as 'systemsof symbols and meanings' essentially unconditionedby material, social, and political processes, and the concomitantabstraction of cultural change from political orsocial relations,particularly relations of inequality,domination,and exploitation" (Turner 1993:415). Elsewhere(1991:292) he speaks of anthropology as having "defineditself in abstraction from the 'situation of contact,' as theantithesis of 'change' and the enemy of 'history.' "These sorts of claims are by now so widespread, sotaken for granted, such a natural part of the intellectuallandscape, that they appear as basic truths. We find themrepeated in book reviews in The New York Times and TheNew Yorker as well as in the writings of students and established anthropologists. And yet they are so far from the actual history and nature of our field that it should raise serious questions about the sociology of knowledge and the development and spread of ideas.I shall consider each of Keesing's critiques in turn.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
Tiga klaim saya bahas dapat ditemukan dalam ringkas dan
bentuk eksplisit dalam sebuah artikel baru-baru ini oleh Roger M. Keesing
(1994), diterbitkan dalam volume dengan kontribusi dari
banyak antropolog dibedakan (Borofsky 1993).
Roger Keesing adalah penyumbang utama antropologi
atas beberapa dekade terakhir dan tulisannya bisa sering berfungsi
sebagai arah angin. Dalam hal ini ia menyatakan konvensional baru
hikmat sangat jelas. 1. Menurut kritik Keesing ini seperti antropologi memperlakukan orang-orang itu mempelajari sebagai "radikal mengubah," tidak dipahami dengan cara yang sama bahwa kita memahami diri kita sendiri. "Jika alteritas radikal tidak ada, itu wouZd menjadi antropologi proyek untuk menciptakan itu. " Alteritas radikal, ia menulis, "sebuah kultural lain yang sangat berbeda dari Kami memenuhi kebutuhan dalam pemikiran sosial Eropa .... Saya percaya kita terus melebih-lebihkan Perbedaan, dalam mencari eksotis dan untuk radikal filsafat otherness Barat, dan mengidam Barat alternatif, permintaan "(hal. 301, penekanan ditambahkan). Karena buku Edward Said, Orientalism (1978), semacam ini kritik telah diterima secara luas sebagai benar. Di tempat lain Keesing (1990: 168) berbicara tentang "antropologi proyek Orientalis mewakili otherness. " Said proyek eems telah berhasil dengan sangat baik. Hal ini tidak mudah untuk membebaskan mahasiswa pascasarjana dari gagasan bahwa antropolog mempelajari hanya eksotis, yang lain, bahkan oleh membaca untuk mereka daftar Ph.D. disertasi atau judul makalah pada pertemuan AAA yang berfokus pada masyarakat dan topik yang sangat dekat dengan rumah. Berikut ini adalah contoh lain, dari ringkasan Arturo Escobar posisi Lila Abu-Lughod pada budaya (Abu- Lughod 1991): Sampai-sampai konsep budaya telah menjadi primaxy alat untuk membuat yang lain dan untuk mempertahankan hirarki sistem perbedaan, kita harus mengarahkan upaya kreatif kita terhadap konsep, dia mengatur, berdasarkan "menulis terhadap budaya." Kita perlu melihat kesamaan, tidak hanya pada perbedaan; dengan menekankan koneksi, kami juga merusak gagasan 'total' budaya dan bangsa .... Bisakah kita menekankan tidak boundedness dan keterpisahan tapi koneksi [Escobar? 1993: 381] Aku akan menyatakan bahwa garis-garis seperti ini melakukan ketidakadilan besar bagi sejarah yang sebenarnya dan sifat bidang kita. 2. Keesing berpendapat bahwa antropologi selalu menjadi sejarah. Menurut Keesing, "Dunia abadi, tanpa henti mereproduksi dirinya sendiri struktur, sosial dan ideasional, masing-masing mewakili eksperimen unik dalam budaya kemungkinan, telah (kita sekarang tahu) telah dibentuk di terns quests filosofis Eropa dan asumsi, ditumpangkan pada masyarakat ditemui dan ditundukkan di sepanjang perbatasan kolonial "(p.301; cf.Dirksl992: 3-4; Wallerstein 1996). Johannes Fabian buku Waktu dan Lainnya: H OWA nthropology akesI ts Object (1983), adalah teks pilihan di sini, dengan klaimnya bahwa antropolog mendominasi dengan menyangkal coevalness, contemporaneity, dengan Lainnya eksotis yang kita pelajari, kita "Objects" ( tidak lagi kami "Subjek"). 3. Roger Keesing mengklaim bahwa antropolog diperlakukan setiap budaya sebagai unit yang terisolasi, tidak berhubungan dengan apapun yang lain. "Budaya mereka tertutup rapat, di luar yang mencapai waktu dan sistem dunia, "katanya (hlm. 306). 306). Ini adalah begitu banyak bagian dari wacana yang saat Andre GunderFrank (1990), mencemooh "tradisional" antropologi pada Pertemuan Tahunan 1990 dari AAA, mengklaim bahwa studi Boas desain kasus jarum Eskimo (Boas 1908) dirancang untuk menunjukkan "keterpisahan dari budaya "(penekanan ditambahkan). Frank tidak tahu apa kertas Boas sebenarnya tentang tidak penting; apa yang mengganggu adalah bahwa ia bisa membuat pernyataan seperti sebelum ruang penuh antropolog dan tetap tertandingi Keesing melanjutkan dengan mengutuk mereka yang "mengedit Kristen, toko perdagangan, migrasi tenaga kerja, politik kontemporer dan ekonomi tunai... " dalam rekening etnografis nya daerah, Melanesia (hlm. 306). Supaya itu dianggap bahwa klaim ini tentang antropologi yang istimewa dan seperti biasanya, Terence Turner telah diucapkan satu set sama biaya. Turner menulis tentang (a) "kecenderungan antropologi kronis untuk fokus pada budaya sebagai unit diskrit dalam isolasi...", dan (b) "yang endencies untuk mengobati budaya sebagai domain otonom, misalnya, sebagai 'sistem. simbol dan makna 'pada dasarnya tanpa syarat oleh bahan, sosial, dan proses politik, dan seiring abstraksi dari perubahan budaya dari politik atau hubungan sosial, khususnya hubungan ketimpangan, dominasi, dan eksploitasi "(Turner 1993: 415). Di tempat lain (1991: 292) ia berbicara tentang antropologi sebagai memiliki "didefinisikan dirinya dalam abstraksi dari 'situasi kontak,' sebagai antitesis dari 'perubahan' dan musuh 'sejarah. " " Ini macam klaim yang sekarang begitu luas, sehingga diterima begitu saja, seperti bagian alami dari intelektual lanskap, bahwa mereka muncul sebagai kebenaran dasar. Kami menemukan mereka diulang dalam resensi buku di The New York Times dan The New Yorker serta dalam tulisan-tulisan siswa dan antropolog didirikan. Namun mereka begitu jauh dari sejarah aktual dan sifat bidang kita yang seharusnya menimbulkan pertanyaan serius tentang sosiologi pengetahuan dan pengembangan dan penyebaran ide-ide. Saya akan mempertimbangkan setiap kritik Keesing di gilirannya.
































































































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: