Suchergebnisse

Considerable tension among the subfields has existed within the discipline of anthropology. As a result, some anthropology departments have splintered, and the hallmark "holistic approach" of anthropology has been considered more myth than reality. However, as promoted by the American Anthropological Association and the American Anthropologist for over one hundred years, enhancing the holistic nature of anthropology remains an important and necessary endeavor. This article provides an introduction to this special issue of the American Anthropologist, which focuses on the subfield of biological anthropology. Hopefully, as a result, increased connections among the subfields will be fostered, for the betterment of both biological anthropology and anthropology in general. The underlying theme of this article and the subtext for the entire special issue is clear: Biological anthropology needs anthropology, and anthropology needs biological anthropology. [Keywords: biological anthropology, subfields, four‐field approach, holistic]

Der vorliegende Überblick entstand im Auftrag und bezogen auf den Kontext des Sonderforschungsbereichs 'Literatur und Anthropologie' an der Universität Konstanz. Im Sonderforschungsbereich wurde eine dreifache Fragestellung verfolgt: (1) Warum produzieren Menschen Literatur? (2) Was wird in der Literatur über den Menschen gesagt? (3) Wie verhalten sich die literarischen Darstellungen zu anderen sprachlichen Artikulationen des 'Menschlichen' oder zu anderen Formen der medialen Repräsentation? Die vorliegende kommentierte Auswahlbibliographie umfaßt vier Forschungsrichtungen: Die Historische Anthropologie, die Philosophische Anthropologie, Interkulturalität und Kulturanthropologie. Die Überblicksdarstellung beabsichtigt, die Hauptanliegen der vier Gebiete in Bezug auf methodische, reflexive und theoretische Überlegungen zu ordnen und kurz zu referieren. (ICA)

G. Gunn reviews the book "Lao peasants under socialism" by Grant Evans. Gunn notes that Evans broaches a relatively traditional study of Lao peasant anthropology with the household as the unit of analysis, but, moving beyond ethnography per se, he (Evans) also makes important statements on the wider dimensions of peasant-state relations and human nature as well as engaging broader debates on anthropological theory. (DÜI-Sen)

Book reviewed in this article: Medicine, Rationality, and Experience: An Anthropological Perspective. Byron J. Good. Knowledge, Power, and Practice: The Anthropology of Medicine and Everyday Life. Shirley Lindenbaum and Margaret Lock, eds.

The viewpoint of a soc & cultural anthrop'st is presented in an overview on this discipline's approach to development. 3 terms & 2 spheres of scholarly activity are noted as important: the terms of 'growth,' 'performance,' & 'development;' & the spheres of macro-analysis of soc processes & empirical field studies. Some development propositions of general currency are considered, eg, that development implies change involving new objectives, ideas, methods, forms of relationship, that nat'lism is detrimental to some development, that the structure of developed countries may affect the position of developing countries, etc. In this context, the contributions of anthrop to the role of educ'al policy, sci'fic & technological policies, COMM, & cultural policy are reviewed. It can be most useful in the analysis of the most appropriate, or optimal, development strategy & in promoting development action by assessing the most effective way of creating particular projects & the results & ramifications of these projects. 3 recommendations are made: improve the supply of indigenous anthrop'ts in developing countries & ensure the recognition of their contribution in U's & gov service; call upon anthrop'ts in developed countries to orient their work in developing countries toward providing maximum support for the growth of sci in the countries concerned; & create an interdisciplinary profession of development advisers who do not have to know everything in one given discipline, but something about several disciplines. Soc sci'ts should devise an interdisciplinary curriculum for training such SE advisers. M. Maxfield.

Seeing Anthropology: Cultural Anthropology through Film. Karl G. Heider. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 347 pp.,. videotapes.

In this short review, I have tried to sketch an overview of historical development of political anthropology and its recent trends. I was enthused to prepare this review article as there does not exist any of such simplified introduction of one of the prominent sub-fields in cultural anthropology for the Nepalis readers, in particular. I believe this particular sub-field has to offer much to understand and explain the recent trends and current turmoil of the political transition in the country. Political anthropologists than any other could better explain how the politics is socially and culturally embedded and intertwined, therefore, separation of the two – politics from social and cultural processes – is not only impossible but methodologically wrong, too. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v5i0.6365 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 5, 2011: 217-34