Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science
Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science
复制标题
人类学地点：领域科学的边界和基础
DOI：
10.2307/3317541
复制
发表时间：
1999
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
James Ferguson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jon P. Mitchell;Akhil Gupta;James Ferguson
这一系列定义了一系列关键问题，以加深我们对我们所谓的纪律实践的理解。卷固定其景点（网站？）关于现有的“领域”结构中的断层线，随着我们的兴趣随着世界和学术的变化而变化，这些弱点已经变得明显-单独的章节在大多数情况下是批判性和反思性的，而不是民族志的。他们得出结论的基础是对各种文本来源的批判性评论，回顾性地，根据他们自己在人类学领域和周围的经验，而不是对人类学实践的“实地”调查。古普塔和弗格森精心组织了他们的卷，以便连续的文章以微妙的方式重叠。各章节都有各自的主题，但大多没有明确的交叉引用。相反，编辑的并列邀请读者比较（例如）在他们自己的介绍性章节（“学科与实践：人类学中的“场”作为地点，方法和位置）中提供的“内幕”历史与紧接着的Kuklick章节（“以实玛利之后：田野工作传统及其未来”）。第一个是对学科内部和边缘的“霸权”和“非正统”研究实践之间关系的细致探索，为“实地考察传统的'再创造'”寻找资源（第25页）。第二种是历史学家对人类学的陌生化，人类学是世纪之交经历重要变革的几门“自然历史”（领域）科学之一。两种（不仅仅是尺度）史学在这里起作用。库克里克提醒我们要注意评价研究的历史学术语（“严格的文献记录”，而不是“特权证人”，甚至是“自称上级”）。. .个人判断”[pp. 63，641）。在下一章中，德斯·切丽描述了她作为人类学进行历史研究的经历（“定位过去”）。读者可能会被提示将库克里克对实地考察的批评与德斯·切尼的请求相匹配，后者认为实地考察是一种“男子汉的英雄主义”，而德·切尼则认为档案馆之旅也应该被接受为适当的“实地考察”（而不是，也许，作为适当的历史研究）。德·谢纳认为，非历史功能主义的突出地位有助于将田野工作（或“局部遭遇”）奉为人类学方法。然而，虽然认识到理论和方法之间缺乏契合，无论是现在和（在脚注中）也在过去，她福尔斯落回反复提到“场”作为“有界场所”，而不是探索实践的复杂性。与古普塔和弗格森关于早期异端的讨论的持续接触可能会有所帮助。尽管如此，Des Chene在她关于Gurkhas的工作中关于多地点研究的潜在价值的令人信服的论点预示了几章之后Martin和Passaro将要提出的问题。似乎是与人类学/历史辩证法相对应，马尔基的《新闻与文化：过渡现象和田野调查传统》探讨了人类学和新闻学对权威的要求之间的关系。和德斯·切尼一样，马尔基认为结构功能主义是关键的学科内陪衬，并指出它对社会“连续性”的强调令人失能。“她有兴趣为人类学重新评估事件和危机局势中的破裂和不确定性的经验感（例如她在卢旺达和布隆迪的难民营中遇到的），她认为这种感觉被结构和系统的概念所掩盖。她发现萨林斯的结构历史不令人信服，她期待像“见证”和“见证”（使用，事实上，在这个集合的几个作者）的体裁。她的立场与库克里克对这些体裁的批评有着强烈的张力。这些丰富的互文关系有待读者去阐释：事实上，它们引发了对不同类型来源（经验的、纪实的等等）的合法性的反思。
This collection defines an array of key issues to consider in deepening our understanding of what we might call disciplinary practices. The volume fixes its sights (sites?) on faultlines in existing constructions of "the field," weaknesses that have become evident as our interests have shifted with changes in the world and the academy- The separate chapters are, for the most part, critical and reflexive rather than ethnographic. They draw their conclusions on the basis of critical commentary on textual sources of various sorts and, retrospectively, on their own experiences in and around anthropology rather than "field" investigations of anthropological practice. Gupta and Ferguson have organized their volume with care so that successive articles overlap in subtle ways. Chapters bear on one another's themes, but mostly without explicit cross-referencing. Instead, the editors' juxtapositions invite readers to compare (for example) the "insider" history offered in their own introductory chapter ("Discipline and Practice: 'The Field' as Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology") with Kuklick's chapter ("After Ishmael: The Fieldwork Tradition and Its Future") which immediately follows. The first is a nuanced exploration of relations between "hegemonic" and "heterodox" research practices within and bordering the discipline, in search of resources for "a 'reinvention' of the fieldwork tradition" (p. 25). The second is an historian's defamiliarization of anthropology as one among several turn-of-the-century "natural history" (field) sciences undergoing important transformations. Two kinds (not just scales) of historiography are at work here. Kuklick alerts us to historiographic terms for evaluating research ("rigorous documentation 11 as against "privileged witnessing" or even "pretensions to superior . . . individual judgment" [pp. 63, 641). In the next chapter Des Cherie describes her experience of doing historical research as anthropology ("Locating the Past"). Readers may be prompted to match Kuklick's critique of fieldwork as enacting a romance of "manly heroics" against Des Chene's plea that trips to archives also be accepted as proper "fieldwork" (rather than, perhaps, as proper historical research). Des Chene argues that the prominence of ahistorical functionalism helped to canonize fieldwork (or "localized encounter" [p. 71]) as anthropological method. However, while recognizing the lack of fit between theory and method both nowadays and (in a footnote) also in the past, she falls back on repeated references to "the field" as "bounded locale," rather than exploring the complexities of practice. Sustained engagement with Gupta and Ferguson's discussion of earlier heterodoxies might have helped here. Still, Des Chene's convincing argument about the potential value of multi-locale research in her work on Gurkhas foreshadows issues to be raised, a few chapters later, by Martin and Passaro. As if in counterpoint to the anthropology/history dialectic, Malkki's "News and Culture: Transitory Phenomena and the Fieldwork Tradition" explores the relationship between anthropological and journalistic claims to authority. Like Des Chene, Malkki sees structural-functionalism as the key intradisciplinary foil, noting its disabling emphasis on social "continuity." She is interested in revaluing for anthropology the experiential sense of rupture and indeterminacy in events and crisis situations (such as she encountered in refugee camps in Rwanda and Burundi), a sense she argues is obscured by notions of structure and system. Finding Sahlins's structural history unconvincing, she looks to genres like "witnessing" and "testimonio" (utilized, in fact, by several authors in this collection). Her position is in strong tension with Kuklick's criticism of these genres. These rich intertextual relations remain for readers to articulate: indeed, they provoke reflection on the legitimacy of different kinds of sources (experiential, documentary, etc. …