Suchergebnisse

Presenting sixty theoretical ideas, David Zeitlyn asks 'How to write about anthropological theory without making a specific theoretical argument.' "David Zeitlyn has written a wryly engaging, short book on, essentially, why we should not become theoretical partisans—that, indeed, being a serious theorist means accepting precisely that principle."—Michael Herzfeld, Harvard University To answer, he offers a series of mini essays about an eclectic collection of theoretical concepts that he has found helpful over the years. The book celebrates the muddled inconsistencies in the ways that humans live their messy lives. There are, however, still patterns discernible: the actors can understand what is going on, they see an event unfolding in ways that are familiar, as belonging to a certain type and therefore, Zeitlyn suggests, so can researchers. From the introduction: This book promotes an eclectic, multi-faceted anthropology in which multiple approaches are applied in pursuit of the limited insights which each can afford…. I do not endorse any one of these idea as supplying an exclusive path to enlightenment: I absolutely do not advocate any single position. As a devout nonconformist, I hope that the following sections provide material, ammunition and succour to those undertaking nuanced anthropological analysis (and their kin in related disciplines)…. Mixing up or combining different ideas and approaches can produce results that, in their breadth and richness, are productive for anthropology and other social sciences, reflecting the endless complexities of real life. …This is my response to the death of grand theory. I see our task as learning how to deal with that bereavement and how to resist the siren lures of those promising synoptic overviews. This book is relevant to anthropology, communication studies, cultural studies and sociology

Introduction -- Reconstructing kinship : the pragmatics of kin talk -- The implicatures of everyday life : Mambila social deixis -- Asking about people, not about kin terms : an experiment in method and interpretation -- Translation, anthropology, kinship -- The ethnography of a Mambila conversation -- A conversation in Somié -- The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation -- Summing up kin talk -- Conclusion.

AbstractI consider the influence of the language used in anthropological analysis (the metalanguage). If in principle there are at least as many anthropologies as there are languages, then we must allow the possibility of seven thousand or so more or less incommensurable anthropologies. However, incommensurability need not follow: not only can sparse theory aid comparison but it can also help establish partial (incomplete) commensurability. The parsimony of sparse theory allows for clarity even when dealing with vague ideas. If to achieve this some fashionable terms of analysis have to avoided, this is a price worth paying. In sum: we should all say less more clearly.

The way types of divination move round the planet means it is not helpful to simply attribute one unitary ontology to specific techniques or to groups of practitioners. Explaining divination in terms of 'ontology' homogenizes cognitive and conceptual multiplicity, and pre-empts the possible outcomes of divination. Moreover, this contradicts the fundamentally open nature of divination, and the fact that in many forms of divination the reformulation of questions helps keep futures open. With examples drawn from Mambila spider divination, I suggest what an epidemiology of beliefs and ontologies that gather around divination could look like. On this account, divination acts as a 'boundary object', mediating both the cognitive differences among clients and the conceptual differences between clients and diviners.

Derrida and Foucault provide key starting points to understanding archives. They see archives as hegemonic, characterizing ways of thought, modes of colonization, and the control of citizens. However, they also make clear that archives can be read subversively. With patience, counter-readings allow the excavation of the voices (sometimes names) of subaltern and otherwise suppressed others from the archive. By reading along and across the archival grain, researchers can follow the development of ideas and processes across historical periods. Archives can be seen as orphanages, containing surrogates of performances. Archives (paper and digital) also provide access to the results of anthropological research in ways mandated by ethics codes, but these are subject to controversy. What sorts of consent and what sorts of anonymization should be provided? Archives run by the groups traditionally studied by anthropologists provide models of radical archives that are very different from those conceived of by traditional archivists. Read a French translation of this article.

Some systems of divination are used to select particular sections of text, which are typically arcane and erudite, in which lies the answer to the particular, pressing problems of the client. Celebrated examples of such systems are the Chinese I Ching and the Yoruba Ifá. Werbner's work on Kalanga and Tswapong divination provides a case‐study of the detailed praxis in such systems. Diviners have a multiple role when a divination technique selects a text. At each consultation they must satisfy themselves, their client, and their audience that they have followed the correct procedures to select the text. A second stage follows. The client has a particular question and the selected text was not composed as a specific answer to it. Interpretation is required to satisfy the client that the question has been answered. The diviner thus plays the role of indigenous critic, a role both similar to and different from that of literary critics in the Western tradition. The concept of 'dialogic' used by Barber in her analysis of Yoruba praise poetry is taken to illustrate similarities and differences between diviner and critic.