That's enough about ethnography!
That's enough about ethnography!
复制标题
DOI：
10.14318/hau4.1.021
复制
发表时间：
2014-06-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ingold, Tim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ingold, Tim
民族志已经成为一个被过度使用的术语，无论是在人类学还是在偶然的学科中，它已经失去了很多意义。我认为，属性“民族志”遇到其中，我们进行我们的研究，或更普遍的实地考察，是破坏本体论的承诺和人类学作为一门学科的教育目的，其主要工作方式，即参与观察。这也是为了再现一种有害的区别，与我们一起学习和学习的人，分别在学院内外。人类学对民族志的痴迷，比其他任何东西都更削弱了它的公众声音。重新获得它的方法是通过重申人类学作为一门致力于治愈想象和真实的生活之间破裂的前沿学科的价值。
Ethnography has become a term so overused, both in anthropology and in contingent disciplines, that it has lost much of its meaning. I argue that to attribute "ethnographicness" to encounters with those among whom we carry on our research, or more generally to fieldwork, is to undermine both the ontological commitment and the educational purpose of anthropology as a discipline, and of its principal way of working-namely participant observation. It is also to reproduce a pernicious distinction between those with whom we study and learn, respectively within and beyond the academy. Anthropology's obsession with ethnography, more than anything else, is curtailing its public voice. The way to regain it is through reasserting the value of anthropology as a forward-moving discipline dedicated to healing the rupture between imagination and real life.