Suchergebnisse

"Der Sozial- und Gesellschaftstheorie ist es keineswegs äußerlich, welchen Begriff des (menschlichen) Lebens sie zugrunde legt. Aus impliziten oder expliziten anthropologischen Annahmen resultiert je ein anderes Bild des Sozialen; sind je andere Phänomene für Vergesellschaftung grundlegend; hat die Gegenwartsgesellschaft je einen anderen Charakter; erscheint das Spannungsverhältnis von Leben und Gesellschaft je anders; wird je eine andere Gesellschaftskritik notwendig. Zu beobachten sind gegenwärtig mindestens drei Anthropologien, die in soziologischen Theorien vorausgesetzt sind: unter Rezeption der vitalistischen Lebensphilosophie die Historische Anthropologie bei Foucault, Deleuze, Agamben; unter pragmatistischer Rezeption der Evolutionsbiologie die Soziologische Anthropologie bei Mead und Claessens; unter Transformation des deutschen Idealismus die Philosophische Anthropologie bei Scheler, Plessner und Gehlen. Die theoriegeschichtlich-systematische Rekonstruktion der konträren Anthropologien macht Vorentscheidungen in Gesellschafts- und Sozialtheorien explizit. Die Konzeptionen menschlichen Lebens differieren bereits in der Entscheidung, von wo aus der Blick auf den Menschen ansetzt: Historische Anthropologie setzt an der konstruktiven Unerschöpflichkeit des Menschen bis in seine organische Natur hinein an (historisches Apriori); Soziologische Anthropologie setzt an der Mitwelt, der kollektiven symbolischen Interaktion an, die bereits im subhumanen Leben als Soziales angelegt ist (soziologisches Apriori); Philosophische Anthropologie setzt an der (auch sozialkonstitutiven) Verschränkung von organischer Natur und Kultur an. Die systematische Rekonstruktion erlaubt im zweiten Schritt eine reflexive Konzeption des Sozialen und eine reflexive Analyse der Gesellschaft. Aus der Voraussetzung einer vitalistischen Anthropologie ist eine Kritik 'biopolitischer' Vergesellschaftung möglich; aus der Voraussetzung einer anticartesianischen Anthropologie eine Sozialtheorie der Expressivität, Materialität und Körperlichkeit; aus der Voraussetzung einer anti-individualistischen Anthropologie eine Theorie, die die Bedeutung der Sozialisation in den gesellschaftlichen Diskurs einbringt." (Autorenreferat)

Writing is key in anthropology, as one of its main modes of communication. Teaching, research, publications, and outreach all build on, or consist of, writing. This entry traces how anthropological writing styles have evolved over time according to changing politics in the discipline. It starts out in the late nineteenth century, showing how early writings in the discipline aimed to be objective. While writing anthropology in a literary mode goes a long way back, it was not until the 1970s that writing began to be collectively acknowledged as a craft to be cultivated in the discipline. This led to a boom of experimental ethnographic writing from the 1980s, as part of the 'writing culture' debate. The idea behind experimental narratives was that they might convey social life more accurately than conventional academic writing. Today, literary production and culture continue to be a source of inspiration for anthropologists, as well as a topic of study. Anthropological writing ranges from creative nonfiction to memoirs, journalism, and travel writing. Writing in such non-academic genres can be a way to make anthropological approaches and findings more widely known, and can inspire academic writing to become more accessible. Recent developments in anthropological writings include collaborative text production with interlocutors and artists. However, the tendency for experimentation is also held in check, as publishing in academic publication formats and featuring in citation indices is crucial for anthropologists' careers. Still, as our writing moves increasingly online, there is a growth of flexible formats for publishing, including online books, essays on current affairs, and conversations in journals. ; The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology (CEA) is an open-access teaching and learning resource.

The present effort is a compendious review of the theoretical orientations of political anthropology. Authors deliberately unfold the discussion with a paradox between the ?political anthropology? and the ?anthropology of politics? as a key that ought to relate the contemporary multidisciplinary stands of the subfield. It further focuses on the ?troubled history? of the sub-discipline to understand how it intensified sensitivity towards the pervasiveness of the embedded power and politics within the ?everyday? practice. The ubiquitous ?anthropology of politics? essentially prioritizes the increasing politicization of every single anthropological theme which was beyond the matrix of a single review article. So, the present attempt is rather an outline to render the sporadic growth of political anthropology over the century. By focusing on the successive approaches and recent trends authors try to extend the further scope of the interdisciplinary researches on the complexities and challenges of political anthropology within the age of neoliberal globalization.

How can we rethink anthropology beyond itself? In this book, twenty-one artists, anthropologists, and curators grapple with how anthropology has been formulated, thought, and practised 'elsewhere' and 'otherwise'. They do so by unfolding ethnographic case studies from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland – and through conversations that expand these geographies and genealogies of contemporary exhibition-making. This collection considers where and how anthropology is troubled, mobilised, and rendered meaningful. Across Anthropology charts new ground by analysing the convergences of museums, curatorial practice, and Europe's reckoning with its colonial legacies. Situated amid resurgent debates on nationalism and identity politics, this book addresses scholars and practitioners in fields spanning the arts, social sciences, humanities, and curatorial studies.

TRISTAN LOLOUM, SIMONE ABRAM, and NATHALIE ORTAR, eds. 2021. Ethnographies of Power: A Political Anthropology of Energy. EASA Series 42. New York, N.Y: Berghahn Books, pp. 212, ISBN 978-1-78920-979

Panel Presentation on ethnographic approaches to U.S. Aid, using the concept of "Aidland" as a place one studies and the ideas of Marcel Mauss looking at donors as giftgivers, explicating the discourse of "partnership" when the donors and recipients are unequal. Based on the author's work as democracy consultant in Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Romania.

International audience ; Anthropological studies of Lebanon are as varied as the approaches and career paths of the researchers who conduct them. This diversity mirrors the diasporic tendencies of this small, hemmed-in country (10,452 km2, the official, if contested), while also illustrating the density and power of the knowledge to which it contributes. This chorus of anthropological voices, however, is ultimately a reflection of turbulent and uncertain times, and even by contrast with other Arab countries, Lebanon is a complex country in which to do research. Its accessibility and conflictual history offer rich fields in which to develop innovative methods for the study of societies which are undergoing structural political crises.

International audience ; Anthropological studies of Lebanon are as varied as the approaches and career paths of the researchers who conduct them. This diversity mirrors the diasporic tendencies of this small, hemmed-in country (10,452 km2, the official, if contested), while also illustrating the density and power of the knowledge to which it contributes. This chorus of anthropological voices, however, is ultimately a reflection of turbulent and uncertain times, and even by contrast with other Arab countries, Lebanon is a complex country in which to do research. Its accessibility and conflictual history offer rich fields in which to develop innovative methods for the study of societies which are undergoing structural political crises.

International audience ; Anthropological studies of Lebanon are as varied as the approaches and career paths of the researchers who conduct them. This diversity mirrors the diasporic tendencies of this small, hemmed-in country (10,452 km2, the official, if contested), while also illustrating the density and power of the knowledge to which it contributes. This chorus of anthropological voices, however, is ultimately a reflection of turbulent and uncertain times, and even by contrast with other Arab countries, Lebanon is a complex country in which to do research. Its accessibility and conflictual history offer rich fields in which to develop innovative methods for the study of societies which are undergoing structural political crises.

The article explores some of the assumptions behind the current valence of the notion of trust and in particular its entanglement in discourses of social robustness, the management and reporting of (corporate) knowledge, and its underlying culture and systems of responsibility. It unfolds by contrasting classic and contemporary anthropological work on cultures of suspicion, culpability and spiritual ambiguity with the new vocabulary of capitalist corporate ethics. Finally, the argument examines the work that relationships do when moving in and out of the occult, and contrasts it with the kind of temporal work that capitalism demands from relationships to remain diaphanous. If public trust functions as the political epistemology of neoliberal society, an anthropological theory of trust ought perhaps to reaffirm instead our trust in anthropological theory and comparison. ; Peer reviewed

Sarah Green and Patrick Laviolette were editors of the journal Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale when this article was written. ; This commentary revisits the "Rethinking Euro-anthropology" Forums published in the journal Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale. It reconsiders three specific issues: who are the subjects of European anthropology, who are its others, and who are its authors? Noting that European anthropology does not imply a spatial fixity (there is no "there there" in European anthropology), we suggest instead that European anthropological scholarship is the outcome of diverse forms of crossborder and transborder exchanges. Yet as a project that is both intellectual and political, we further discuss some of the contradictions, ambiguities and paradoxes behind this "worlding" of the discipline. By observing that E(e)uropean anthropology in particular should constantly strive to relate the locating endeavours of ethical practice, empirical evidence, historical reflection and humanistic theorising, we call for innovative forms of academic collaboration, narrative creations and belonging to/with places. ; Peer reviewed

In May 2018, the European Union (EU) introduced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with the aim of increasing transparency in data processing and enhancing the rights of data subjects. Within anthropology, concerns have been raised about how the new legislation will affect ethnographic fieldwork and whether the laws contradict the discipline's core tenets. To address these questions, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London hosted an event on 25 May 2018 entitled 'Is Anthropology Legal?', bringing together researchers and data managers to begin a dialogue about the future of anthropological work in the context of the GDPR. In this article, I report and reflect on the event and on the possible implications for anthropological research within this climate of increasing governance.

What does it mean to 'do' economic anthropology, now, in the wake of the financial crisis and the re-energizing of public discussion over the nature of debt, credit, speculation, and inequality? Two recent books offer signal insights. This essay suggests they also point towards a specific kind of lingering that may be politically and analytically useful: an occupation of a uniquely anthropological kind. © Royal Anthropological Institute 2012.