Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Hymes Use of Anthropology 1969

    Загружено:

    Ashrafkakkarr
    35 просмотров39 страниц
    Hymes Use of Anthropology 1969

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Hymes Use of Anthropology 1969

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    35 просмотров39 страниц

    Hymes Use of Anthropology 1969

    Загружено:

    Ashrafkakkarr
    Hymes Use of Anthropology 1969

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 39
    1 | | | | | 2 The Use of Anthropology: Critical, Political, Personal Dell Hymes Antinopoigy wil weve in changing word by allowing il ‘enh br orar tobe bor agin under e mew gue. Claude Lats (16, p 96) Thou merit with ting ing, 1 with things ewtor Shakespeare, The Winter Tale, 1 i I Ie awmtmoroncey did not exit, would it have to be invented? It it were reinvented, would it be the anthro pology we have now? To both questions, the answer, T chink, is no, What, after ML i this anthropology, that its absence would be noticed or that cannot be done severally by its pars or by other disc: plines If it is unique in its unifying perspective, where are its holistic, integrating works? Does anyone write about "An- thropology” as 2 whole except in the smorgasbord of text books or a8 2 committee IF thas natural unity, why does its makeup differ so much from one country and siational tradition to another, even from one department to another? Who can read the program of the annual meetings of the ‘Asyociation and find in i the profile ofa scence? Would an objective ethnographer, observing organized anthropology today, not conclude that its structure reflects adaptation to 2 pat, ot present, environment, that ite essentially 2 Dall yma = 4 vival? That from the viewpoint of the nes, last, generation Urthe twentieth century, it will be found one of Ae remains of crude okt culture which have pased into of whi Te a harsher, and at cme vf sopersiion me ted o mark tren painful, oe of echnography (0 expose oer deauction, (Tylor, (9871) 1958, Vol % P-588) pat, some will wy, if anthvopology did. nt exis who a om a anopologiss doe Widout a wadition of Ta We stsune, some of might be found not word, frig tet could be diaries readily within general oi To bese if oe had the presen seit eres She andy of man with oni anthropology missing sa hi ke adem anopology might begin, oH Te tik eh “unapproprinted odd and end for See Kroeber, sir D2, with “work hat we ae seer Secnne no one eke cares for ie” Sosy 904 oi eae unl. The situation in which anthro PF nda niche at a academic pofesion in the pele, ere stud te arn ofthis century gone, The pest dinton of iaboranthropology on Indian Tse aa oi ne dnciiiac! paces sbrond, sociology a bore we Pope as quite broken down, ‘The American Gol ctewing mn beeing lm may eit eiyao bet ocioogit, political scien 2 oc sa gt or een an economin. The pon ape recor pt ei endian may tn ou to be «Nisin. Ie Mem fhe endent wanting to sy urban problems creed power inthe United Stats of sting out fr # sre Poentourg, ouside Pars o near te Medi aasestiely to beim anthropology. a ee he master i iat the study of an Wee et tenced now, there would e no apparent need fF rk meaponding to anthropology a we Have it we Daited Sts today. Its organization i sensally abi the te to to the veal ste ters of the Ey, Sut arence and sce, And whatever the intra Tum Use or Arrmorouaey = 5 alignments ofa freshly designed study of man, no portion ‘would be able to take or Keep for itself 2 name such as “anthropology.” appropriate oly 10 the whole. While no ‘one can wipe the slate suddenly clean and reinvent the ‘udy of man from seratch, there are indications that 2 ‘econstruction iin face, coming about rather steadily. The prospects are unfivorabl forthe “anthropology” we now have either to grow to full its sel'conception and aspirations, or to maintain its present form. Although con Ceiving of itself asthe rience of man, it has never fally be ‘ome such, in scope of either subject matter or participation, eis not @ universal discipline; nor is it ikely to Become fone, Under its present mame i& cannot perhaps escape its history as an expression ofa certain period i the discovery, then domination, of the rest of the world by European and [North American societies! Most ofthe world has done with font something called anthropology, ems willing enough to forego it now, and can even be positively hostile to it. The very existence of an autonomous discipline that spe ializes in the study of others has always been somewhat problematic. People everywhere today, especially (and Fightly) third world peoples, increasingly resist being sub- jects of inquiry, especially for parposes not their own; and anthropologise increasingly find the busines of inquiring. fand knowing about others a source of dilemmas—so much So that some abandon the clasial identity of the anthro- Pot retin ty Gn one oul ay oni ome ‘own in "When anthropology in the United States was implicitly united around the study ofthe American Indian, most lead- ing specialists in Indians were found within that circle and it led in pioneering necessary methods of study, Every one at leat Knew the names of the same ethnic units and culture areas. ‘That implicit source of cohesivenes is gone. ‘\ hundred topical and regional orientations bloom beyond. any would-be gurdener’s contro. A single goal to which all Tines of work can be said to contribute can hardly be Dallfiyma = aniclate, andthe various ines are commonly dependent arlclte Say open ais, arin, and cOmpraion cn acer enhropogy. beady 3 ear tat from ou ucents ov paren cal nar uly ra! cere common purpose. fen enough ic tings mun be conte o proetral de qari egies of harmony requies avoidance of ‘pete nteleta substance. oe eects departmental orginzation for granted a etme in these roubling ies 0 cing aad pea en the name of "general 0thOPOOE, more i ene other ce word for mining the “ada rst quo, eto dow so eet something Sate of cen soaelig that is gel a prod of Sanivendes and ofthe rote of the United ig World War IL True a the Se ee iaday, andropeogy is predominantly mie Sten organi in ears ut iw ade ret coon in many places before 1 had depart an sac Pei wa 9 proven in muss ond go mene of sore it war acadencr and it was a sent crn fee it became profeonaied at all The Be sation Pearce spl lave EN sees to apest a wantOr AE Ser ee number of anthropologists ouside eo aes sted, aan inience proportionate See when i cmes, will markedly ehange the 1 a Tne fed. More generally, he needs, bath caer sca o wih anoles sec ch ati a waned departmental and even aederle Bene tbe nate of anchopoloy thin fu Ni Sera peso of mankind. he et i ony uc aderents of the pari atopolOgy We Ss wt beyond present Suctie 10 gee ne land Bn ew forms to reali ae a er antropology i the United Sis i hot eee whether fa preen inaonal cone the expansion States in the work follow “Tw Ustor Anrinorotoey + 7 eee ea rer at str Se ae men ih ee ee eee Se ener son meh br st reat Pine ae sete eerste Forget the dict af defning anthropology ot even of Gel Ye ented now? Ts xh dat a een or te even i'theve hard Ges, We dealin actual works mc sperity, afterall, is not necessarily a sign of a profes: ih a smal discipline, it iny departments, many ttropology may be deceptive. Thou docs have, relative to its own past, ma ae aan, ut spread of departments may be merely spread the academy, » momentim of of a cultural pattern within fe. Current. attractiveness (0 imitation, not fresh respons ‘infens say be due toa supesicial, quickly sted. interest she enotic or toa serious incerest that meets with isypr ointment. Taree certain tradition, a certain ethos, yes and it storms our concer, or we would not speak of reinventing aetpropology rather than of abandoning it, But much bas to arenes tlie rethought fom the foundation, i what has spuigarated anthropology 2 its Dest is to survive, Tn one ‘owgorthropology is indeed a continuing awociation, it wee pose who aaocate do, But everything depends on the cee ries set to association and on the directions givem, aoaaetfamselt said (1955, P- 326). If the mold of depart et anthropology remains unchallenged and wachanged aaa ansnly will anthropology not be reinvented, it will happen, Notthe name, not professionals calling themselves wae Pepologias,” but a reson for being, a relationship De aanetpe sanythcal charter” of the Beld as a “science of sneer or man, and actual practice. “Anthropology” will rae “what anthropologists do.” and what they do will sree dgepadge of vested itera in which ehove who Cae aaa ahe me interests of mankind will find lite place Bae aim this book seeks to impose answers in these segues rather we sek to help build 2 community i which aarp not necessarily the same forall, an freely be found. aoe chat such a community iim fact, being bus w ep, pty publicly, often enough privarely and quietly ret is genuine indication chat anthropology inthe United Sees 1s being reinvented and thatthe next generation wil Sates Pensformation. ‘The surge of reconsideration, of *< ah this book ip but one instance, indicates im ite chat whee rod fe coming to an end another emerging, The rade fran of anthropology apnwers I think 0 che pre dion made to aot another parse by Reino Jes {1939} 1965. p. 63): me 7 bs Tae Ate, te din ah using on eae i change be wl ro tls Jt ‘But he must fall, " pesances ofits own worl, seking 1 comprehend histor 0 —_—_—_——— ir Dall tiymes = 10 in mind thatthe cradition transcends organized disciplines a re ved boundaries. Oficial anthropology may be it an er neve ts soe custodian can be a center of but wear circumference, Not all “anthropologists” seve *t metre who do bear other labels, This being the cs ae nbver adopt and furthers the wadition bas rece! facing pat in it nd for invoking the name, Indes saree herent in the tradition is to become univers) aa Te tovwhat is known of man, but also asc partici tion ia the community of knows. a stim is complex and has 2 checkered histor 8 sin an but itcan be state simply: “The gener PF Wi ee evolution of mankind.” It was stated in those xe ich chat emphasis, by Franz Boas (1904 P- 588) it mores co which I shall want co zeturn several mek os 2 alps remembered now maul 3b a name, CSP PY 5 ere york cantinies to Duild om his sis the ease fo are of several American India languages and cular) aa sitorians, In his professional ie, andl for 2 whe an ath in ig, his igure dominated American a tepology. Te vg esay was writen within afew Years of xp Bng of the Amevicen Anthropologtt on Hs Pe rae ace (abg8) and of the founding of the American

    Вам также может понравиться