One issue discussed by PM anthropologists is about subjectivity; because ethnographies are influenced by the disposition of the author, should their opinions be considered scientific? Clifford Geertz, considered a founding member of postmodernist anthropology, advocates that, “anthropological writings are themselves interpretations, and second and third ones to boot” In the 21st century, some anthropologists use a form of standpoint theory; a person's perspective in writing and cultural interpretation of others is guided by their own background and experiences.
Other major tenets of postmodernist anthropology are:
an emphasis on including the opinions and perspectives of the people being studied,
cultural relativism as a method of inquiry
skepticism towards the claims of science to producing objective and universally valid knowledge
the rejection of grand, universal schemes or theories which explain other cultures (Barrett 1996).
A critique by non-anthropologists has been to question whether anthropologists may speak/write on behalf of cultural others. Margery Wolf states that, “it would be as great a loss to have first-world anthropologists confine their research to the first world as it is (currently) to have third-world anthropologists confine theirs to the third world”. In the 21st century, the question has been resolved by pointing out that all cultural descriptions are of cultural others. All ethnographic writing is done by a person from one standpoint writing about others living in a different standpoint. Thus, the notion of anthropologists as 'culture brokers' (see Richard Kurin) has been adopted to explain why anthropologists from any given country write about cultural others.
Postmodernism in anthropology
The postmodern anthropological approach focuses primarily on the belief that there is no real objectivity, and thus it is not possible to develop (and apply) an authentic scientific method. It also assumes the negation of all previous trends understood as "modern". Modernity in terms of representatives of this trend is what is considered holistic (for example, that one can examine some aspect in its entirety and in depth). The rejection of "the great theory of anthropology and the concept of completeness of the ethnographic description" also plays a large role. A fairly large variation from other trends is the treatment of an anthropologist (researcher) as a person who has no authorityanthropological. Thus, the most important element of postmodernist anthropology is reflexivity and all its implications. To a large extent, it is based on the foundations of a critical approach to Orientalism according to Edward Said. Criticism created by postmodernist anthropologists, was directed against ethnographic descriptions, constructed on the principle of dichotomy"I-different" (where "I" means the researcher, and "other" is the subject of the study). The negation concerned the issue of constructing the description of "another" (and, consequently, the appearance of the opposition "I") by anthropologists who were representatives of all previous trends. An important element of postmodernist anthropology is the concept of "entering the body". Postmodernist anthropologists also draw inspiration from trends such as relativism and interpretationism (in the sense that the dichotomy mentioned above can be separated at the level of ethnographic description, with the indication that such a division will be quite superficial). Such criticism has two levels: epistemological and ideological(both distinguish subjectivity, in contrast to earlier trends that assumed ruthless objectivism). Anthropology, according to the epistemological argument, can not be an exact science.
For anthropologists such as Clifford Geertz, research on culture should rely on its "reading" - the community is seen, described and interpreted in accordance with the analogy of the book.
Different researchers tended to look at culture fragmentarily: what is observed during ethnographic research are "shreds and scraps" of what is actually. The postmodernist anthropologists' view is closer to the fact that there is no one big theory, and the only one that could qualify is that culture is "similar to text" (according to Geertz's view).
In turn, such researchers as Paul Rabinow began to seriously undermine the legitimacy of an anthropologist's work in the field, and thus, there was a doubt in the sense of conducting field research.
The milestone of the postmodern breakthrough was a deep skepticism about the researcher. Anthropologists wondered if the researcher could properly and honestly read the cultural context in an appropriate way and, as a result, describe the community properly.
Main assumptions
According to Marcin Lubas, postmodern anthropologists agree on general issues regarding the general assumptions of this direction. What distinguishes them are different views on more detailed issues, which are individual for each of the representatives. Lubaś also claims that:
"
The conceptual foundations of postmodernist anthropology are built of four concepts. Each of them, taken separately, is an expression of a more general view.
"
- Marcin Lubaś
These concepts for postmodernist anthropologists are four issues: nominalism, idiography, historicism, anti-essentialism - and an additional, fifth element distinguished by Lubas as emerging from previous - criticism by decentration.
Nominalism
Nominalism can be called an ideology that assumes that there are only individual and individual aspects. It is also a denial that there are common property of objects. The goal of anthropology is to study specific and unique aspects of social life, not to deal with processes that are observed for a long time (that is, aspects that are repetitive and universal).
Idiography
Anthropology is idiographic. Describes multiple, changeable and, above all, specific historical forms of cultural differences. According to this assumption, research should be based primarily on observing such areas of social life, which commonly accepted patterns are not able to capture them. The proponent of this theory was earlier, the American researcher Franz Boas. Boas's skepticism (based on distrust of ethnographic data) was subsequently intercepted by postmodernist anthropologists.
Historicism
Historicism in this context means the classification according to which everything that is part of the broadly understood culture is a historical and cultural phenomenon. On the other hand, these phenomena arose in unique and unique conditions. In other words, postmodern anthropologists try to understand the world around them by explaining the historical conditions of a given phenomenon.
Anti-essentialism
By definition, anti-essentialism contradicts views that there are "more" and "less" accurate descriptions of reality. Proponents say that we never speak about objects as such, but about the attributes attributed to objects on the basis of certain theories or discourses. This means that antyesencjaliści explain the "truth" as the theory of pragmatic (checking the assertion in terms of its usefulness) tudzież as perspectivism - is considered to be true views, the correctness of which has been accepted in the "creative action".
Criticism through decentration
The aim of distinguishing "criticism by decentration" is to say that each (individual) point of view is one of many possibilities of existence of a given reference system (perspectives). There is an unlimited number of ways to look at the world, so there is no single, universal way of understanding. There is also no distinction between "worse" and "better".
Other anthropologists associated with the postmodern trend
Lila Abu-Lughod
Johannes Fabian
F. Allan Hanson
Kirsten Hastrup
Mark Hobart
Dennis Tedlock
A breakthrough work
In 1984, The Making Ethnographic Texts conference was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico. It presents groundbreaking papers of postmodern anthropology of well-known representatives of this trend, such as: James Clifford (anthropology historian), George E. Marcus, Vincent Crapanzano, Talal Asad, Michael MJ Fischer, Paul Rabinow, Stephen A. Tyler, Robert Thornton and literary critic Mary Louise Pratt. After the conference in New Mexico, the papers included in the book, which is considered the first work representing postmodern anthropology - Writting Culture (Writing Culture). The authors mentioned above, discussed the place of literary methods in the anthropological discourse. Due to the varied research interests of the authors, Writting Culture presented a wide range of views which, despite everything, were preserved in the postmodernist spirit.
In this work, James Clifford (who wrote the introduction) initially negates the perception of ethnography as a representation of culture as a whole. He also notices the disadvantage of ethnography, which is its incomplete expression, also in the case when a researcher who comes from the same community joins the research on a given group. Clifford also claims that ethnography, as a way of writing, is rather an advantage than a flaw. What's more - the style of writing (considered literary) is also indicated in the creation of ethnographic narrative. In no case does it take away the objectivity and does not affect the fact that the facts contained in the ethnographic text (maintained in almost poetic style) are less valuable and deserve condemnation.
In turn, according to Mary Louise Pratt, the essence of understanding and the way to "real" ethnography is subjectivity and all its implications: for example a look (from a distance) and reconsideration of the results of ethnographic research in the light of historical precedents and literary genres.
Other authors, such as Vincent Crapanzano, Renato Rosaldo and Talal Asad, focus on analyzes of historical texts that are diverse in every respect. These texts were mainly analyzed for translation. And so: the first one examines the problem of translating texts from such periods as the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which differ enormously from each other in every respect. The second one looks at the styles of authority in two texts of known (on the stage of anthropology) personalities (for example, Edward Evans-Pritchard's text). Assad, however, took under the microscope the texts of the British researcher Ernest Gellner.
Michael Fisher sought to analyze changes in the ethnicity issue that occurred at the turn of the next generations.
Paul Rabinow, on the other hand, wanted to approach the aspect of " social facts ". He watched the texts of such anthropologists as Clifford Geertz (and with his interpretative texts), James Clifford (and his textual metaanthropology) and many others. Stephen A. Tyler, having contact with cognitive anthropology behind him, proves the imminent death of scientific thought (at the same time indicating that there is no real postmodernist anthropology) for the postmodern trend, which will soon become a discourse, i.e. Dialogue, opposed to ethnographic monologue « the text »of the first one.
In connection with the renowned Writting Culture, the aforementioned discourse has been continued by these anthropologists (and others who inspired it).
For example, Norman K. Denzin treats postmodern anthropology as a " moral discourse " - ethnography is not just describing peoples, and therefore it is necessary to break this convention and to move towards ethnography based on experiment and own experience (using techniques such as autobiography or performance).
The fame of this work is not unfounded, because Writting Culture was one of the most cited and bought books in the field of cultural anthropology in the 1980s. The book initiated many responses from anthropologists who contributed to this publication. All this has caused a great stir in the academic world around the world. Commentators of the new trend began to divide into groups that held specific views. The first group is the advocates of the new direction as a critic of previous trends. The other, however, was skeptical: postmodernism in anthropology turned out to be a trend that downplays political issues and the realities of today. The third group completely rejected the new trend, focusing on methodological and epistemological issues.
The Writting Culture authors belonged to the "Rice Circle". The name of the group of these anthropologists comes from the name of the place of their academic activities: Rice University in Texas. Representatives of this circle can be simultaneously included in the precursors of the postmodernist anthropology trend.
Indian New Deal
Indian reformer John Collier in 1920-22 studied the Taos Pueblo In New Mexico, with an architecture and culture stretching back centuries. It made a lasting impression on Collier. He now saw the Indian world as morally superior to American society, which he considered to be "physically, religiously, socially, and aesthetically shattered, dismembered, directionless." Collier came under attack for his romantic views about the moral superiority of traditional society as opposed to modernity. Collier became the main architect of the Indian New Deal 1933-45. He employed the perspectives we now call postmodern to reverse the long-standing national policy of compulsory assimilation of Native Americans. He enlisted numerous anthropologists in the 1930s and 1940s to support his position. Philp says after his experience at the Taos Pueblo, Collier "made a lifelong commitment to preserve tribal community life because it offered a cultural alternative to modernity....His romantic stereotyping of Indians often did not fit the reality of contemporary tribal life."
Criticism of postmodern anthropology
Criticism of the postmodern trend in anthropology presented by Ernest Gellner, published in 1992, concerned primarily subjectivism and lowering of criteria. According to this anthropologist, postmodernism, in a way not fully argued, attacks objectivity and earlier anthropological traditions. Postmodernists opposed positivist objectivism and sought for hermeneutics, and this, according to Alan Barnard Romantic Movement two centuries ago, with its demolition of the classic Enlightenment order of Europe In addition, he criticizes his critics against the authors of the postmodernist book Writting Culture, where their articles are deeply criticized for their lack of clarity. The subjectivism was negated, the view that there are no social structures and postmodernist search for meanings during research. Clifford Geertz is accused of initiating hermeneutic thinking in anthropology and defending relativism.
Robert Pool, on the other hand, criticizes postmodern anthropology in two perspectives: first, for the lack of unambiguity in the term "postmodernism" (he claims that there is no single, coherent and generally accepted definition), secondly, according to Pool, it can not be attributed, or classify individual anthropological works in the field of "postmodernism", as opposed to clear situations, as in the case of arts or architecture. It also recognizes that this term is not properly used when it comes to the scope of ethnography. He thinks that's because, what is commonly regarded as post-modernist in anthropology, in reality it is the presentation of modernismor an element that has no relevance to this term in comparison, for example, to the fields of art, where the works in essence clearly "show" that they belong to the postmodern trend. It unambiguously excludes the classifications of Marcus and Clifford's works to the category of both postmodernist and "experimental ethnographic works".
Source from Wikipedia
没有评论:
发表评论