Book
title: Paul Erickson and Liam Murphy.2003. A history of
Anthropological Theory. Peterborough, Ont.; Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press,
c1998.
Main
points:
-conclusion
– generally speaking, at the dawn of the 21st century, the adherent of
anthropological postmodernity and globalization theory arise form a camp of
‘human scientist’ whose proverbial tents are pith alongside those who defend
narrowly materialist vision of their discipline. (174)
-we believed that there has continued to exit
general agreement about the unity of anthropological theory and this unity
remains largely intact. (176) for one thing, Boas, Geertz and Levi-Strauss
remained firmly enshrined with an anthropological pantheon. This may reflect a
significant defect in the postmodern critique: namely that it only succeed at
throwing the historical baby out, questioning the work of ancestral generations
but offer little substance to replace them. (176)
- we can speculate to a limited extent about trends
of the future. We believe that one implication of the diversity encountered in
this book is that anthropologist will continue to consider consensuses
regarding the best theories and method the ‘holy grail’ of our discipline; this
longing might well prove utopian. (178)
- we are living in and passing through a
‘Janus-faced’ moment, in which we are looking both to the past and to the
future for inspiration.(178)
- equally important is that the history of
anthropological theory is really a history of anthropological theory. We must
allow for other anthropologies’, or other tales of discovery and cross-cultural
encounters – other methods and context in which knowledge is formed. (179)
- it seems that the history of theory is defined not
so much by ‘facts’, as by the tendency of different anthropological historians and
the changing consensus that develop around one or another perspective. Only the
most novice readers will conclude that theory is ‘out there’, ready to be
plucked from the air by a fortuitous ‘discoverer’.(180)
沒有留言:
張貼留言