Afterword: A view from the center
Afterword: A view from the center
复制标题
后记：从中心看去
DOI：
10.1080/00141844.1982.9981237
复制
发表时间：
1982
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Stocking
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Stocking
尽管“人类学”一词表面上具有统一的包容性，但实际上在欧美人类学传统中存在着很大的多样性。这种多样性的历史还有待书写（参见。Diamond 1980）;但似乎很清楚的是，人类学与其说是一门由孔德式的知识分化的逻辑历史过程产生的单一科学，不如说是一种完全不同的研究传统的不完美融合：生物学的，历史的，语言学的，社会学的。这种融合的结果在不同的民族知识传统中各不相同，在那些具有更强烈包容性的方法之间形成了最鲜明的对比（最特别的是，尽管有问题，在欧洲大陆，人类学一词传统上指的是对人的身体的研究。在欧洲-美洲传统中，人们也可以区分”帝国建设”的人类学。和人类学的”国家建设“。英国人类学研究的特点主要取决于在海外帝国中与黑皮肤“其他人”的经验。与此相反，在欧洲大陆的许多地方，民族认同和内在民族主义的关系在19世纪文化民族主义运动的背景下往往成为一个更加焦点的问题;而强大的民族主义传统与民族主义截然不同。前者研究的是组成国家的内部农民他者，或帝国内部的潜在国家;后者研究的是更遥远的他者，要么是海外的，要么是更早的欧洲历史。尽管中心地区的民族人类学传统之间存在着大量受历史制约的多样性，但很明显，从边缘地区的角度来看，可以看到一个重要的统一体。超越特定的知识和制度的影响，
Despite the apparently unifying embraciveness of the term" anthropology," there is actually a great deal of diversity within the Euro-American anthropological tradition. The history of this diversity has yet to be written (cf. Diamond 1980); but it seems clear that anthropology is not so much a single science produced by some Comtean logico-historical process of intellectual differentiation as it is an imperfect fusion of quite different traditions of inquiry: biological, historical, linguistic, sociological. The outcome of this fusion has varied in different national intellectual traditions, with the sharpest contrast between those with a more strongly embracive approach (most especially, albeit problematically, the Anglo-American) and those of the European continent in which the term anthropology has traditionally referred to the physical study of man.Within the Euro-American tradition one may also distinguish between anthropologies of" empire-building" and anthropologies of" nation-building." The character of anthropological inquiry in Great Britain has been primarily determined by experience with dark-skinned" others" in the overseas empire. In contrast, in many parts of the European continent, the relation of national identity and internalotherness tended, in the context of nineteenth century movements of cultural nationalism, to be a more focal issue; and strong traditions of Volkskundedeveloped quite distinctly from Volkerkunde. The former was the study of the internal peasant others who composed the nation, or potential nations within an imperial state; the latter was the study of more distant others, either overseas or farther back in European history. Granted that there is a great deal of historically conditioned diversity among the national anthropological traditions of the center, it is nonetheless clear that from the perspective of the periphery, an important unity can be seen. Beyond the specific intellectual and institutional influences of particu-