Suchergebnisse

Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.

Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.

Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.

The paper is based on a lecture held on 2nd February 1927.

Anthropology is the study of human behavior and culture, and anthropologists in the United States divide their research into four sub-fields of study: physical anthropology; archaeology; linguistic anthropology; and cultural anthropology. North American anthropology draws its impetus from the foundational work of Franz Boas, a professor at Columbia University who lived along the Arctic Circle on Baffin Island, Canada for one year in the late nineteenth century where he kept copious notes of the language, life ways and customs of the Inuit. The following year, Boas collaborated with several museums conducting fieldwork along the North Pacific Coast setting the tone for anthropologists working closely with native peoples taking extensive field-notes about their world and worldviews as well as collaborating with museums to educate the public about these very issues. Following Boas's example, anthropologists have conducted ethnographic research on cultures throughout the world and have, through museums, archival collections, and publications, created a rich record of humanity's diverse belief systems, forms of social organization, and political dynamics.The Border Studies Archive, with it focus on the U.S. Mexico border in general and the Rio Grande Valley in particular, represents one such documentation and preservation initiative.

El surgimiento de las ciencias sociales como disciplinas académicas se dio en un contexto de profundos cambios sociales, derivados de una nueva forma de organización política, económica y laboral en el mundo occidental. En el reparto de las parcelas del saber, la Antropología Social y Cultural se dedicó durante décadas a observar a los "otros", en la búsqueda de lo diferente y exótico, pero también de lo que a la humanidad nos constituye como tal. En ese proceso, se han construido paradigmas explicativos y conceptos desde los que aproximarse a las distintas realidades. En este artículo se plantea un recorrido por dicho proceso, tomando como eje explicativo los conceptos de cultura y naturaleza humana. ; The emergence of the social sciences as academic disciplines took place in a context of profound social change, derived from a new form of political, economic and labour organization in the western world. In the distribution of areas of knowledge, for decades Social and Cultural Anthropology was assigned the task of observing "others", in the search for what was different and exotic, but also in the quest for what makes humanity what it is. In the process, explicative paradigms and concepts have been constructed in order to approach different realities. This article proposes to review this process, taking as its explicative axis the concepts of culture and human nature. ; peerReviewed

Human experience has a symbolic structure. By focusing on the symbolism of human action, this essay considers the reciprocal influences and the essential differences between Paul Ricœur's hermeneutics and Clifford Geertz's cultural anthropology. Through reference to Ricœur's Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, the section on "Ideology, Utopia, and Politics" in From Text to Action, and Geertz's 1973 book The Interpretation of Cultures, this paper aims at reconstructing the dialogue between these thinkers. I begin with a broad framing of the encounter between Ricœur and Geertz, and then turn to the notion of the symbolic mediation of action, considering it as the shared key concept between these authors. These reflections will lead to an examination of the semiotic conception of culture, opening up the discussion of a nonpejorative dimension of ideology. ; L'expérience humaine a un caractère symbolique. En focalisant l'attention sur le symbolisme de l'action humaine, cet essai porte sur les influences réciproques et sur les différences essentielles entre l'herméneutique de Paul Ricœur et l'anthropologie culturelle de Clifford Geertz. En se référant à l'œuvre de Ricœur L'idéologie et l'utopie, à la section "Idéologie, utopie, politique" dans Du texte à l'action, et au travail de Geertz publié en 1973 intitulé The Interpretation of Cultures, cet article vise à reconstruire le dialogue entre ces penseurs. En premier lieu, je présenterai le contexte général de la rencontre entre la pensée de Ricœur et celle de Geertz et, en second lieu, j'analyserai la notion de médiation symbolique de l'action, en reconnaissant en celle-ci le concept clé partagé par les auteurs. Ces réflexions nous conduiront à examiner la conception sémiotique de la culture et à ouvrir la discussion sur la dimension non-péjorative de l'idéologie.

The present paper is a review of 'The Lele of the Kasai', An Anthropological research made by Mary Douglas in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Africa in 1963. The fieldwork about The Lele of the Kasai is one of the most significant monographs which were consecrated to the Bantu society of the Congo-Leopoldville. Mary Douglas dedicated her research to the social structure, social organization, Social cohesion, and kinship, the economy backward, family members roles (the division of labor) from the traditional and modern perspectives (I. e. before colonization and after colonization). However, M. Douglas' research has similarities with this paper presented on 'Social structure and Economic Market of Yakoma ethnic group' in Bangui, Central African Republic (2009). The main purpose of the review is to carried out her fieldwork methodology approaches and theories, objectives, analysis, her engagement as social anthropologist, examine the types of study she undertakes, the important of her research to anthropology study and describe similarities between "The Lele of the Kasai" of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Yakoma ethnic group in Central African Republic (CAR).

Der Artikel greift mit dem von Heather Paxson skizzierten Konzept der Mikrobiopolitik eine biopolitische Rezeptionslinie innerhalb des Fächerkanons der Kulturanthropologie und Europäischen Ethnologie auf, um zu hinterfragen, welche Praktiken und Politiken sich auf den regulierenden Eingriff in die Interaktionsbeziehung zwischen Menschen und Mikroben gründen. Die Idee der Mikrobiopolitik knüpft an naturwissenschaftliche sowie ethnografische Befunde an, die den Beitrag von Mikroorganismen zu Prozessen von Krankheit und Gesundheit, Evolution, Körpern und Körperpraktiken fokussieren. Basierend auf der Annahme, dass Viren und Menschen in enger wechselseitiger Beziehung zueinander stehen, wird das Beispiel der Influenza-Viren herangezogen, um zu diskutieren, auf welche Weise Viren an der Gestaltung des menschlichen Körpers sowie der Produktion von wissenschaftlichem Wissen beteiligt sind. Im Vergleich zwischen Mikrobiopolitik und Biopolitik zeigt sich, dass beide Perspektiven von der Prämisse ausgehen, dass Lebens- und Körperprozesse zum Gegenstand von Macht- und Wissensordnungen werden und damit möglichen politischen Interventionen einen Ansatzpunkt bieten. Beide Perspektiven unterscheiden sich jedoch darin, welche Lebensprozesse als relevant gelten, in welchen Zusammenhängen sich diese problematisieren lassen und welche Potenziale ihnen zugeschrieben werden. Für eine Mikrobiopolitik von Infektionskrankheiten steht dabei weniger das pathogene Potenzial von Mikroorganismen im Vordergrund, als vielmehr das biosoziale. ; ABSTRACT The article takes up, through the concept of microbiopolitics outlined by Heather Paxson, a line of biopolitics reception within the framework of Cultural Anthropology and European Ethnology, to investigate what policies and practices are based on medical regulated intervention in relationship within the interactions between men and microbes. The idea of microbiopolitcs is based on both natural-sciences diagnostics and ethnographic studies, putting the focus on the contribution of microorganism on disease processes and health, development, bodies and body practices. Based on the assumption that viruses and men are in close mutual relationships with one another, we take the example of the influenza virus, in order to discuss how viruses take part in the configuration of human bodies, as well as the production of scientific knowledge. In the comparison between microbiopolitics and biopolitics is shown that both perspectives are based on the premise that the body processes and life becomes the subject of orders of Power and Knowledge, and because of that, they are political interventions, which provide a starting point. However, they differ both perspectives in which processes of life are considered relevant, in which relationships they can be problematized and which potentials can be attributed to them. For a microbiopolitics of infectious disease which takes the spotlight is not much potential pathogenic microorganism, but the biosocial.

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

Reviewed book: Anu Lounela, Eeva Berglund & Timo Kallinen (eds.). 2019. Dwelling in Political Landscapes: Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. ISBN 978-951-858-087-7 (Print) ISBN 978-951-858-114-0 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-858-113-3 (EPUB) ISSN 0085-6835 (Studia Fennica) ISSN 1796-8208 (Studia Fennica Anthropologica) ; Non peer reviewed