- Teks
- Sejarah
NotesAcknowledgments. The first ver
Notes
Acknowledgments. The first version of this paper was a talk
given at a day to honor Professor Robert A. Manners at Brandeis
University in October 1994. I am indebted to Bob Manners, who
passed away in 1996, for the exciting introduction to anthropology
he gave me in the 1950s, and for encouraging me to write
this piece in the 1990s. I am indebted as well to many friends and
colleagues who either heard the original presentation or have
read and commented on various written versions. Among these I
must single out my longtime friend and colleague, the late Arnold
Strickon, who read and commented on this piece as well as
much that I have written over the years, and Harold Fleming,
Leonard Markovitz, David Henige, and my wife Marcia Lewis.
The American Philosophical Society facilitated my research on
Franz Boas through the award of a Mellon Resident Research
Fellowship. Finally I am grateful to the reviewers (Patty Jo Watson
and a second reader who remains anonymous) for their careful
reading and excellent editorial suggestions.
1. I am not aware of any published studies of these developments
as they affected anthropology. Perhaps it is still too early,
but it would certainly be worthwhile to investigate the political
and intellectual history of this era as it relates to recent and current
anthropology.
2. Thus, in certain critical respects, both the impetus for this
latest revolution in anthropology and its intellectual inspiration
comes from outside the field of anthropology itself. For a useful
piece dealing with some of the many intellectual influences,
though not the origins or causes, see Knauft (1994); also see
Ferry and Renaut ( 1990).
3. This blanket condemnation of an essentialized and reified entity called "anthropology" comes right after an apparent misrepresentation
of an important passage from E. B. Tylor's Primitive Culture. As an epigraph to the first chapter, immediately following a quote from Georg C. Lichtenberg on the efficacy
of the use of force, Fabian places Tylor's statement that research
into the history and prehistory of man "has its practical
side, as a source of power destined to influence the course of
modern ideas and actions" (Tylor 1871, II:443). Given the point
of Fabian's book, someone not familiar with the passage might
suppose that Tylor meant that anthropology could be used to
dominate Others. In fact, he meant that such knowledge could be
used as a basis for the reform of British society.
4. The basis of this claim rests largely on a few slender pieces
from the 1960s and 1970s, for example, Asad (1973), Gough
(1968), and D. Lewis (1973) (see Forster 1973 for a review;
Stocking 1991:3-8). In our era, when critique is the order of the
day, why have these rather slight pieces, clearly based on Cold
War interests and debates which themselves need rethinking,
not only remained unchallenged but been readily accepted as
unquestioned historical truth, the gospel that grounds current
understandings? Although a number of older British anthropologists
have written to question this view, based on their own
experiences, they are ignored (see, e.g., essays by R. Firth, A. I.
Richards, P. C. Lloyd, S. Chilver, I. M. Lewis in Loizos 1977; cf.
Kuper 1973, Goody 1995: 191-208, esp.).
Given the fact that American anthropologists began working
outside of the United States as a matter of course only after
World War II, largely after the colonial era, and few American
anthropologists were ever in the camp of the structural-functionalists,
by what intellectual sleight of hand and guilt by association
does American anthropology become equally tarred
with the same brush as the British in Africa or the Pacific?
The whole question of the relationship between American Indians
and anthropologists needs calmer and more thorough
study than it has yet received. Perhaps the recent volume edited
by Thomas Biolsi ( 1997) will begin the process.
5. Marcus and Fischer complain of "a persistent tendency to
drag all discussions back to the classic works of the first generation
of modern fieldworkers.... Quibbles that authors of pioneering
descriptive accounts of other cultures such as E. E.
Evans-PritchardB, ronislaw Malinowski, FranzB oas, or Gregory
Bateson already ' said something like that, ' . . . are not helpful
if they do not focus on how we can do better"( 19 86:viii-ix).
I do not intend to quibble that Boas "said something like that"
but to argue, sometimes citing Boas and Malinowski, that in important
respects the whole history and nature of the field has
been seriously misrepresented in ways that forest all and hamper
the development of deeper and better understandings of humanity.
What they actually taught and wrote does make a difference!
6. For example, a book review with the heading "Anthropologists!
Fold Up Your Tents" ends "Ms. Abu-Lughod has
demonstrated with great effectiveness that anthropology does
not have to emphasize the divisions between us and everybody
else; it is equally capable of drawing attention to our common
humanity" (Edgar 1993). And, "Anthropology, having heroically
defined itself as the study of man, has sunk into a deserved
moral crisis" (New Yorker 1992).
7. As George W. Stocking rightly points out (1968:11()
132), many nineteenth-century evolutionists held attitudes toward
;'primitives "and other "races" that we (and our earlier
twentieth-century predecessors)deplore and condemn. But to a
great extent they still made assumptions about the uniformity of
human behavior under similar evolutionary and environmental
conditions.
8. In fact, Boas believed that there was a universal core of
common ethical tendencies, "I might say instinctive ethical tendencies,"
he wrote to his colleague John Dewey in 1913. As late
as 1941 he reaffirmed this:
As an anthropologist I feel very strongly that it is possible to
state certain fundamental truths which are common to all
mankind, not with standing the form in which they occur in
special societies. These general human characteristics are a
protection against a general relativistic attitude. I believe that
the ability to see the general human truth under the social
forms in which it occurs is one of the viewpoints that ought to
be most strongly emphasized. [Boas correspondence, microfilm,
Boas Papers, American Philosophical Society, 3/29/13
and 2/17/41 ]
9. Montaigne also says, "It is more of a job to interprate the interpretations than to interpret the things, and there are more books about books than about any other subject: we do nothing but write glosses about each other. The world is swarming with
commentaries ; of authors there is a great scarcity"( 1948:8 18).
Acknowledgments. The first version of this paper was a talk
given at a day to honor Professor Robert A. Manners at Brandeis
University in October 1994. I am indebted to Bob Manners, who
passed away in 1996, for the exciting introduction to anthropology
he gave me in the 1950s, and for encouraging me to write
this piece in the 1990s. I am indebted as well to many friends and
colleagues who either heard the original presentation or have
read and commented on various written versions. Among these I
must single out my longtime friend and colleague, the late Arnold
Strickon, who read and commented on this piece as well as
much that I have written over the years, and Harold Fleming,
Leonard Markovitz, David Henige, and my wife Marcia Lewis.
The American Philosophical Society facilitated my research on
Franz Boas through the award of a Mellon Resident Research
Fellowship. Finally I am grateful to the reviewers (Patty Jo Watson
and a second reader who remains anonymous) for their careful
reading and excellent editorial suggestions.
1. I am not aware of any published studies of these developments
as they affected anthropology. Perhaps it is still too early,
but it would certainly be worthwhile to investigate the political
and intellectual history of this era as it relates to recent and current
anthropology.
2. Thus, in certain critical respects, both the impetus for this
latest revolution in anthropology and its intellectual inspiration
comes from outside the field of anthropology itself. For a useful
piece dealing with some of the many intellectual influences,
though not the origins or causes, see Knauft (1994); also see
Ferry and Renaut ( 1990).
3. This blanket condemnation of an essentialized and reified entity called "anthropology" comes right after an apparent misrepresentation
of an important passage from E. B. Tylor's Primitive Culture. As an epigraph to the first chapter, immediately following a quote from Georg C. Lichtenberg on the efficacy
of the use of force, Fabian places Tylor's statement that research
into the history and prehistory of man "has its practical
side, as a source of power destined to influence the course of
modern ideas and actions" (Tylor 1871, II:443). Given the point
of Fabian's book, someone not familiar with the passage might
suppose that Tylor meant that anthropology could be used to
dominate Others. In fact, he meant that such knowledge could be
used as a basis for the reform of British society.
4. The basis of this claim rests largely on a few slender pieces
from the 1960s and 1970s, for example, Asad (1973), Gough
(1968), and D. Lewis (1973) (see Forster 1973 for a review;
Stocking 1991:3-8). In our era, when critique is the order of the
day, why have these rather slight pieces, clearly based on Cold
War interests and debates which themselves need rethinking,
not only remained unchallenged but been readily accepted as
unquestioned historical truth, the gospel that grounds current
understandings? Although a number of older British anthropologists
have written to question this view, based on their own
experiences, they are ignored (see, e.g., essays by R. Firth, A. I.
Richards, P. C. Lloyd, S. Chilver, I. M. Lewis in Loizos 1977; cf.
Kuper 1973, Goody 1995: 191-208, esp.).
Given the fact that American anthropologists began working
outside of the United States as a matter of course only after
World War II, largely after the colonial era, and few American
anthropologists were ever in the camp of the structural-functionalists,
by what intellectual sleight of hand and guilt by association
does American anthropology become equally tarred
with the same brush as the British in Africa or the Pacific?
The whole question of the relationship between American Indians
and anthropologists needs calmer and more thorough
study than it has yet received. Perhaps the recent volume edited
by Thomas Biolsi ( 1997) will begin the process.
5. Marcus and Fischer complain of "a persistent tendency to
drag all discussions back to the classic works of the first generation
of modern fieldworkers.... Quibbles that authors of pioneering
descriptive accounts of other cultures such as E. E.
Evans-PritchardB, ronislaw Malinowski, FranzB oas, or Gregory
Bateson already ' said something like that, ' . . . are not helpful
if they do not focus on how we can do better"( 19 86:viii-ix).
I do not intend to quibble that Boas "said something like that"
but to argue, sometimes citing Boas and Malinowski, that in important
respects the whole history and nature of the field has
been seriously misrepresented in ways that forest all and hamper
the development of deeper and better understandings of humanity.
What they actually taught and wrote does make a difference!
6. For example, a book review with the heading "Anthropologists!
Fold Up Your Tents" ends "Ms. Abu-Lughod has
demonstrated with great effectiveness that anthropology does
not have to emphasize the divisions between us and everybody
else; it is equally capable of drawing attention to our common
humanity" (Edgar 1993). And, "Anthropology, having heroically
defined itself as the study of man, has sunk into a deserved
moral crisis" (New Yorker 1992).
7. As George W. Stocking rightly points out (1968:11()
132), many nineteenth-century evolutionists held attitudes toward
;'primitives "and other "races" that we (and our earlier
twentieth-century predecessors)deplore and condemn. But to a
great extent they still made assumptions about the uniformity of
human behavior under similar evolutionary and environmental
conditions.
8. In fact, Boas believed that there was a universal core of
common ethical tendencies, "I might say instinctive ethical tendencies,"
he wrote to his colleague John Dewey in 1913. As late
as 1941 he reaffirmed this:
As an anthropologist I feel very strongly that it is possible to
state certain fundamental truths which are common to all
mankind, not with standing the form in which they occur in
special societies. These general human characteristics are a
protection against a general relativistic attitude. I believe that
the ability to see the general human truth under the social
forms in which it occurs is one of the viewpoints that ought to
be most strongly emphasized. [Boas correspondence, microfilm,
Boas Papers, American Philosophical Society, 3/29/13
and 2/17/41 ]
9. Montaigne also says, "It is more of a job to interprate the interpretations than to interpret the things, and there are more books about books than about any other subject: we do nothing but write glosses about each other. The world is swarming with
commentaries ; of authors there is a great scarcity"( 1948:8 18).
0/5000
NotesAcknowledgments. The first version of this paper was a talkgiven at a day to honor Professor Robert A. Manners at BrandeisUniversity in October 1994. I am indebted to Bob Manners, whopassed away in 1996, for the exciting introduction to anthropologyhe gave me in the 1950s, and for encouraging me to writethis piece in the 1990s. I am indebted as well to many friends andcolleagues who either heard the original presentation or haveread and commented on various written versions. Among these Imust single out my longtime friend and colleague, the late ArnoldStrickon, who read and commented on this piece as well asmuch that I have written over the years, and Harold Fleming,Leonard Markovitz, David Henige, and my wife Marcia Lewis.The American Philosophical Society facilitated my research onFranz Boas through the award of a Mellon Resident ResearchFellowship. Finally I am grateful to the reviewers (Patty Jo Watsonand a second reader who remains anonymous) for their carefulreading and excellent editorial suggestions.1. I am not aware of any published studies of these developmentsas they affected anthropology. Perhaps it is still too early,but it would certainly be worthwhile to investigate the politicaland intellectual history of this era as it relates to recent and currentanthropology.2. Thus, in certain critical respects, both the impetus for thislatest revolution in anthropology and its intellectual inspirationcomes from outside the field of anthropology itself. For a usefulpiece dealing with some of the many intellectual influences,though not the origins or causes, see Knauft (1994); also seeFerry and Renaut ( 1990).3. This blanket condemnation of an essentialized and reified entity called "anthropology" comes right after an apparent misrepresentationof an important passage from E. B. Tylor's Primitive Culture. As an epigraph to the first chapter, immediately following a quote from Georg C. Lichtenberg on the efficacyof the use of force, Fabian places Tylor's statement that researchinto the history and prehistory of man "has its practicalside, as a source of power destined to influence the course ofmodern ideas and actions" (Tylor 1871, II:443). Given the pointof Fabian's book, someone not familiar with the passage mightsuppose that Tylor meant that anthropology could be used todominate Others. In fact, he meant that such knowledge could beused as a basis for the reform of British society.4. The basis of this claim rests largely on a few slender piecesfrom the 1960s and 1970s, for example, Asad (1973), Gough(1968), and D. Lewis (1973) (see Forster 1973 for a review;Stocking 1991:3-8). In our era, when critique is the order of theday, why have these rather slight pieces, clearly based on ColdWar interests and debates which themselves need rethinking,not only remained unchallenged but been readily accepted asunquestioned historical truth, the gospel that grounds currentunderstandings? Although a number of older British anthropologistshave written to question this view, based on their ownexperiences, they are ignored (see, e.g., essays by R. Firth, A. I.Richards, P. C. Lloyd, S. Chilver, I. M. Lewis in Loizos 1977; cf.Kuper 1973, Goody 1995: 191-208, esp.).Given the fact that American anthropologists began workingoutside of the United States as a matter of course only afterWorld War II, largely after the colonial era, and few Americananthropologists were ever in the camp of the structural-functionalists,by what intellectual sleight of hand and guilt by associationdoes American anthropology become equally tarredwith the same brush as the British in Africa or the Pacific?The whole question of the relationship between American Indiansand anthropologists needs calmer and more thoroughstudy than it has yet received. Perhaps the recent volume editedby Thomas Biolsi ( 1997) will begin the process.5. Marcus and Fischer complain of "a persistent tendency todrag all discussions back to the classic works of the first generationof modern fieldworkers.... Quibbles that authors of pioneeringdescriptive accounts of other cultures such as E. E.Evans-PritchardB, ronislaw Malinowski, FranzB oas, or GregoryBateson already ' said something like that, ' . . . are not helpfulif they do not focus on how we can do better"( 19 86:viii-ix).I do not intend to quibble that Boas "said something like that"but to argue, sometimes citing Boas and Malinowski, that in importantrespects the whole history and nature of the field hasbeen seriously misrepresented in ways that forest all and hamperthe development of deeper and better understandings of humanity.What they actually taught and wrote does make a difference!6. For example, a book review with the heading "Anthropologists!Fold Up Your Tents" ends "Ms. Abu-Lughod hasdemonstrated with great effectiveness that anthropology doesnot have to emphasize the divisions between us and everybodyelse; it is equally capable of drawing attention to our commonhumanity" (Edgar 1993). And, "Anthropology, having heroicallydefined itself as the study of man, has sunk into a deservedmoral crisis" (New Yorker 1992).7. As George W. Stocking rightly points out (1968:11()132), many nineteenth-century evolutionists held attitudes toward;'primitives "and other "races" that we (and our earliertwentieth-century predecessors)deplore and condemn. But to agreat extent they still made assumptions about the uniformity ofhuman behavior under similar evolutionary and environmentalconditions.8. In fact, Boas believed that there was a universal core ofcommon ethical tendencies, "I might say instinctive ethical tendencies,"he wrote to his colleague John Dewey in 1913. As lateas 1941 he reaffirmed this:As an anthropologist I feel very strongly that it is possible tostate certain fundamental truths which are common to allmankind, not with standing the form in which they occur inspecial societies. These general human characteristics are aprotection against a general relativistic attitude. I believe thatthe ability to see the general human truth under the socialforms in which it occurs is one of the viewpoints that ought tobe most strongly emphasized. [Boas correspondence, microfilm,Boas Papers, American Philosophical Society, 3/29/13and 2/17/41 ]9. Montaigne also says, "It is more of a job to interprate the interpretations than to interpret the things, and there are more books about books than about any other subject: we do nothing but write glosses about each other. The world is swarming withcommentaries ; of authors there is a great scarcity"( 1948:8 18).
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Catatan
Ucapan Terima Kasih. Versi pertama dari makalah ini adalah pembicaraan
diberikan pada hari untuk menghormati Profesor Robert A. Manners di Brandeis
University di Oktober 1994. Saya berhutang budi kepada Bob Manners, yang
meninggal pada tahun 1996, untuk pengenalan menarik untuk antropologi
dia memberiku di tahun 1950-an, dan untuk mendorong saya untuk menulis
sepotong pada 1990-an. Saya berhutang budi juga untuk banyak teman dan
kolega yang baik mendengar presentasi asli atau telah
membaca dan mengomentari berbagai versi tertulis. Di antaranya saya
harus satu teman saya lama dan kolega, almarhum Arnold
Strickon, yang membaca dan mengomentari bagian ini serta
banyak bahwa saya telah menulis selama bertahun-tahun, dan Harold Fleming,
Leonard Markovitz, David Henige, dan istri saya Marcia Lewis.
The American Philosophical Society memfasilitasi penelitian saya pada
Franz Boas melalui penghargaan dari Mellon Resident Penelitian
Fellowship. Akhirnya saya berterima kasih kepada ulasan (Patty Jo Watson
dan pembaca kedua yang tetap anonim) untuk hati-hati mereka
membaca dan saran editorial yang sangat baik.
1. Saya tidak mengetahui adanya penelitian yang diterbitkan dari perkembangan ini
karena mereka mempengaruhi antropologi. Mungkin masih terlalu dini,
tapi itu pasti akan bermanfaat untuk menyelidiki politik
sejarah dan intelektual era ini yang berkaitan dengan baru-baru ini dan saat ini
antropologi.
2. Dengan demikian, dalam hal-hal penting tertentu, baik dorongan untuk ini
revolusi terbaru dalam antropologi dan inspirasi intelektual
berasal dari luar bidang antropologi itu sendiri. Untuk berguna
sepotong berurusan dengan beberapa dari banyak pengaruh intelektual,
meskipun tidak asal-usul atau penyebab, lihat Knauft (1994); juga melihat
Ferry dan Renaut (1990).
3. Ini kutukan selimut dari suatu entitas essentialized dan abstrak disebut "antropologi" datang tepat setelah keliru jelas
dari bagian penting dari Budaya Primitif EB Tylor. Sebagai prasasti ke bab pertama, segera setelah kutipan dari Georg C. Lichtenberg tentang khasiat
dari penggunaan kekuatan, Fabian menempatkan pernyataan Tylor yang penelitian
ke dalam sejarah dan prasejarah manusia "memiliki praktis
sisi, sebagai sumber daya ditakdirkan untuk mempengaruhi jalannya
ide dan tindakan yang modern "(Tylor 1871, II: 443). Mengingat titik
buku Fabian, seseorang yang tidak akrab dengan bagian itu mungkin
mengira bahwa Tylor berarti bahwa antropologi dapat digunakan untuk
mendominasi Lainnya. Bahkan, ia berarti bahwa pengetahuan tersebut dapat
digunakan sebagai dasar untuk reformasi masyarakat Inggris.
4. Dasar klaim ini terletak sebagian besar pada potongan ramping beberapa
dari tahun 1960-an dan 1970-an, misalnya, Asad (1973), Gough
(1968), dan D. Lewis (1973) (lihat Forster 1973 untuk review;
Stocking 1991: 3 -8). Di era kita, ketika kritik adalah urutan
hari, mengapa ini agak sedikit potongan, jelas berdasarkan Dingin
kepentingan Perang dan perdebatan yang perlu pemikiran ulang,
tidak hanya tetap tak tertandingi tetapi telah mudah diterima sebagai
kebenaran sejarah dipertanyakan, Injil yang dasar saat ini
pemahaman? Meskipun sejumlah antropolog Inggris yang lebih tua
telah menulis mempertanyakan pandangan ini, berdasarkan mereka sendiri
pengalaman, mereka diabaikan (lihat, misalnya, esai oleh R. Firth, AI
Richards, PC Lloyd, S. Chilver, IM Lewis di Loizos 1977; lih
Kuper 1973, Goody 1995: 191-208, esp)..
Mengingat fakta bahwa antropolog Amerika mulai bekerja
di luar Amerika Serikat sebagai hal yang biasa hanya setelah
Perang Dunia II, sebagian besar setelah era kolonial, dan beberapa Amerika
antropolog pernah di perkemahan orang struktural-fungsionalis,
dengan apa sulap intelektual tangan dan rasa bersalah oleh asosiasi
tidak antropologi Amerika menjadi sama berlapis ter
dengan kuas yang sama dengan Inggris di Afrika atau Pasifik?
Seluruh pertanyaan tentang hubungan antara Indian Amerika
dan antropolog membutuhkan lebih tenang dan lebih menyeluruh
studi daripada belum diterima. Mungkin volume baru-baru ini diedit
oleh Thomas Biolsi (1997) akan memulai proses.
5. Marcus dan Fischer mengeluh "kecenderungan gigih untuk
menyeret semua diskusi kembali ke karya-karya klasik dari generasi pertama
dari para peneliti lapangan yang modern .... Quibbles bahwa penulis perintis
rekening deskriptif budaya lain seperti EE
Evans-PritchardB, ronislaw Malinowski, FranzB OAS, atau Gregory
Bateson sudah 'mengatakan sesuatu seperti itu,' tidak membantu...
jika mereka tidak fokus pada bagaimana kita bisa berbuat lebih baik ". (19 86: viii-ix)
Saya tidak bermaksud untuk berdalih bahwa Boas "kata sesuatu seperti itu "
tapi untuk berdebat, kadang-kadang mengutip Boas dan Malinowski, bahwa dalam penting
hal seluruh sejarah dan sifat lapangan telah
secara serius disalahpahami dalam cara-cara yang hutan semua dan menghambat
perkembangan pemahaman yang lebih dalam dan lebih baik dari umat manusia.
Apa yang mereka benar-benar diajarkan dan menulis tidak membuat perbedaan!
6. Sebagai contoh, sebuah resensi buku dengan judul "! Antropolog
Lipat Up Tenda Anda "berakhir" Ms. Abu-Lughod telah
ditunjukkan dengan efektivitas besar bahwa antropologi tidak
tidak harus menekankan perpecahan antara kami dan semua orang
lain, melainkan sama-sama mampu menggambar perhatian kita bersama
umat manusia "(Edgar 1993). Dan, "Antropologi, setelah heroik
mendefinisikan diri sebagai studi tentang manusia, telah tenggelam ke dalam pantas
krisis moral "(New Yorker 1992).
7. Seperti George W. Stocking benar menunjukkan (1968: 11 ()
132), banyak evolusionis abad kesembilan belas diadakan sikap terhadap
; 'primitif "dan lainnya" ras "yang kita (dan kami sebelumnya
pendahulu abad kedua puluh) menyesalkan dan mengutuk Tapi. untuk
sebagian besar mereka masih membuat asumsi tentang keseragaman
perilaku manusia di bawah evolusi dan lingkungan yang serupa
kondisi.
8. Bahkan, Boas percaya bahwa ada inti universal
kecenderungan etis umum, "Saya bisa mengatakan kecenderungan etis naluriah,"
tulisnya untuk rekannya John Dewey pada tahun 1913. Sampai akhir
sebagai 1941 ia menegaskan ini:
Sebagai seorang antropolog saya merasa sangat kuat bahwa adalah mungkin untuk
menyatakan kebenaran fundamental tertentu yang umum untuk semua
umat manusia, bukan dengan berdiri bentuk di mana mereka terjadi pada
khusus masyarakat. Ciri-ciri umum manusia adalah
perlindungan terhadap sikap relativitas umum. Saya percaya bahwa
kemampuan untuk melihat kebenaran manusia secara umum di bawah sosial
bentuk yang terjadi merupakan salah satu sudut pandang yang seharusnya
menjadi yang paling sangat menekankan. [Boas korespondensi, mikrofilm,
Boas Papers, American Philosophical Society, 3/29/13
dan 2/17/41]
9. Montaigne juga mengatakan, "Ini adalah lebih dari pekerjaan untuk interprate interpretasi daripada untuk menafsirkan hal-hal, dan ada lebih banyak buku tentang buku-buku dari sekitar subjek lain: kita lakukan apa-apa selain menulis glosses tentang satu sama lain Dunia penuh dengan.
komentar ; penulis ada kelangkaan besar "(1948: 8 18).
Ucapan Terima Kasih. Versi pertama dari makalah ini adalah pembicaraan
diberikan pada hari untuk menghormati Profesor Robert A. Manners di Brandeis
University di Oktober 1994. Saya berhutang budi kepada Bob Manners, yang
meninggal pada tahun 1996, untuk pengenalan menarik untuk antropologi
dia memberiku di tahun 1950-an, dan untuk mendorong saya untuk menulis
sepotong pada 1990-an. Saya berhutang budi juga untuk banyak teman dan
kolega yang baik mendengar presentasi asli atau telah
membaca dan mengomentari berbagai versi tertulis. Di antaranya saya
harus satu teman saya lama dan kolega, almarhum Arnold
Strickon, yang membaca dan mengomentari bagian ini serta
banyak bahwa saya telah menulis selama bertahun-tahun, dan Harold Fleming,
Leonard Markovitz, David Henige, dan istri saya Marcia Lewis.
The American Philosophical Society memfasilitasi penelitian saya pada
Franz Boas melalui penghargaan dari Mellon Resident Penelitian
Fellowship. Akhirnya saya berterima kasih kepada ulasan (Patty Jo Watson
dan pembaca kedua yang tetap anonim) untuk hati-hati mereka
membaca dan saran editorial yang sangat baik.
1. Saya tidak mengetahui adanya penelitian yang diterbitkan dari perkembangan ini
karena mereka mempengaruhi antropologi. Mungkin masih terlalu dini,
tapi itu pasti akan bermanfaat untuk menyelidiki politik
sejarah dan intelektual era ini yang berkaitan dengan baru-baru ini dan saat ini
antropologi.
2. Dengan demikian, dalam hal-hal penting tertentu, baik dorongan untuk ini
revolusi terbaru dalam antropologi dan inspirasi intelektual
berasal dari luar bidang antropologi itu sendiri. Untuk berguna
sepotong berurusan dengan beberapa dari banyak pengaruh intelektual,
meskipun tidak asal-usul atau penyebab, lihat Knauft (1994); juga melihat
Ferry dan Renaut (1990).
3. Ini kutukan selimut dari suatu entitas essentialized dan abstrak disebut "antropologi" datang tepat setelah keliru jelas
dari bagian penting dari Budaya Primitif EB Tylor. Sebagai prasasti ke bab pertama, segera setelah kutipan dari Georg C. Lichtenberg tentang khasiat
dari penggunaan kekuatan, Fabian menempatkan pernyataan Tylor yang penelitian
ke dalam sejarah dan prasejarah manusia "memiliki praktis
sisi, sebagai sumber daya ditakdirkan untuk mempengaruhi jalannya
ide dan tindakan yang modern "(Tylor 1871, II: 443). Mengingat titik
buku Fabian, seseorang yang tidak akrab dengan bagian itu mungkin
mengira bahwa Tylor berarti bahwa antropologi dapat digunakan untuk
mendominasi Lainnya. Bahkan, ia berarti bahwa pengetahuan tersebut dapat
digunakan sebagai dasar untuk reformasi masyarakat Inggris.
4. Dasar klaim ini terletak sebagian besar pada potongan ramping beberapa
dari tahun 1960-an dan 1970-an, misalnya, Asad (1973), Gough
(1968), dan D. Lewis (1973) (lihat Forster 1973 untuk review;
Stocking 1991: 3 -8). Di era kita, ketika kritik adalah urutan
hari, mengapa ini agak sedikit potongan, jelas berdasarkan Dingin
kepentingan Perang dan perdebatan yang perlu pemikiran ulang,
tidak hanya tetap tak tertandingi tetapi telah mudah diterima sebagai
kebenaran sejarah dipertanyakan, Injil yang dasar saat ini
pemahaman? Meskipun sejumlah antropolog Inggris yang lebih tua
telah menulis mempertanyakan pandangan ini, berdasarkan mereka sendiri
pengalaman, mereka diabaikan (lihat, misalnya, esai oleh R. Firth, AI
Richards, PC Lloyd, S. Chilver, IM Lewis di Loizos 1977; lih
Kuper 1973, Goody 1995: 191-208, esp)..
Mengingat fakta bahwa antropolog Amerika mulai bekerja
di luar Amerika Serikat sebagai hal yang biasa hanya setelah
Perang Dunia II, sebagian besar setelah era kolonial, dan beberapa Amerika
antropolog pernah di perkemahan orang struktural-fungsionalis,
dengan apa sulap intelektual tangan dan rasa bersalah oleh asosiasi
tidak antropologi Amerika menjadi sama berlapis ter
dengan kuas yang sama dengan Inggris di Afrika atau Pasifik?
Seluruh pertanyaan tentang hubungan antara Indian Amerika
dan antropolog membutuhkan lebih tenang dan lebih menyeluruh
studi daripada belum diterima. Mungkin volume baru-baru ini diedit
oleh Thomas Biolsi (1997) akan memulai proses.
5. Marcus dan Fischer mengeluh "kecenderungan gigih untuk
menyeret semua diskusi kembali ke karya-karya klasik dari generasi pertama
dari para peneliti lapangan yang modern .... Quibbles bahwa penulis perintis
rekening deskriptif budaya lain seperti EE
Evans-PritchardB, ronislaw Malinowski, FranzB OAS, atau Gregory
Bateson sudah 'mengatakan sesuatu seperti itu,' tidak membantu...
jika mereka tidak fokus pada bagaimana kita bisa berbuat lebih baik ". (19 86: viii-ix)
Saya tidak bermaksud untuk berdalih bahwa Boas "kata sesuatu seperti itu "
tapi untuk berdebat, kadang-kadang mengutip Boas dan Malinowski, bahwa dalam penting
hal seluruh sejarah dan sifat lapangan telah
secara serius disalahpahami dalam cara-cara yang hutan semua dan menghambat
perkembangan pemahaman yang lebih dalam dan lebih baik dari umat manusia.
Apa yang mereka benar-benar diajarkan dan menulis tidak membuat perbedaan!
6. Sebagai contoh, sebuah resensi buku dengan judul "! Antropolog
Lipat Up Tenda Anda "berakhir" Ms. Abu-Lughod telah
ditunjukkan dengan efektivitas besar bahwa antropologi tidak
tidak harus menekankan perpecahan antara kami dan semua orang
lain, melainkan sama-sama mampu menggambar perhatian kita bersama
umat manusia "(Edgar 1993). Dan, "Antropologi, setelah heroik
mendefinisikan diri sebagai studi tentang manusia, telah tenggelam ke dalam pantas
krisis moral "(New Yorker 1992).
7. Seperti George W. Stocking benar menunjukkan (1968: 11 ()
132), banyak evolusionis abad kesembilan belas diadakan sikap terhadap
; 'primitif "dan lainnya" ras "yang kita (dan kami sebelumnya
pendahulu abad kedua puluh) menyesalkan dan mengutuk Tapi. untuk
sebagian besar mereka masih membuat asumsi tentang keseragaman
perilaku manusia di bawah evolusi dan lingkungan yang serupa
kondisi.
8. Bahkan, Boas percaya bahwa ada inti universal
kecenderungan etis umum, "Saya bisa mengatakan kecenderungan etis naluriah,"
tulisnya untuk rekannya John Dewey pada tahun 1913. Sampai akhir
sebagai 1941 ia menegaskan ini:
Sebagai seorang antropolog saya merasa sangat kuat bahwa adalah mungkin untuk
menyatakan kebenaran fundamental tertentu yang umum untuk semua
umat manusia, bukan dengan berdiri bentuk di mana mereka terjadi pada
khusus masyarakat. Ciri-ciri umum manusia adalah
perlindungan terhadap sikap relativitas umum. Saya percaya bahwa
kemampuan untuk melihat kebenaran manusia secara umum di bawah sosial
bentuk yang terjadi merupakan salah satu sudut pandang yang seharusnya
menjadi yang paling sangat menekankan. [Boas korespondensi, mikrofilm,
Boas Papers, American Philosophical Society, 3/29/13
dan 2/17/41]
9. Montaigne juga mengatakan, "Ini adalah lebih dari pekerjaan untuk interprate interpretasi daripada untuk menafsirkan hal-hal, dan ada lebih banyak buku tentang buku-buku dari sekitar subjek lain: kita lakukan apa-apa selain menulis glosses tentang satu sama lain Dunia penuh dengan.
komentar ; penulis ada kelangkaan besar "(1948: 8 18).
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.
- Jika kamu bener sayang sama akuBuktikan
- E AI QUE HORA É
- The biggest animals in the world is the
- A baby bive whale weighs more than 3 ton
- pukul berapa sekarang di sau puolo?
- This charge is equally unfounded. Certai
- It weighs about 150 tons, the same as 40
- NÃO ENTENDI
- It is over 30 meters long, the length of
- Outlet
- Patience is virtue
- Toko
- it is pulled through the nigh sky..it is
- Butuh suasana baru
- Just the wha' s toungue weighs 3.8 tons
- A GORA É 15;O7 HORAS
- Just the whas tongue weighs 3.8 tons and
- This charge is equally unfounded. Certai
- Prepare
- This charge is equally unfounded. Certai
- GdMorning MyLOVE HappyB'day yes GdBlessY
- This charge is equally unfounded. Certai
- Engelen
- GdMorning MyLOVE HappyB'day yes GdBlessY
