Nach der Kultur. Anthropologische Potentiale für eine rekursive Geschichtsschreibung

Caroline Arni
{"title":"Nach der Kultur. Anthropologische Potentiale für eine rekursive Geschichtsschreibung","authors":"Caroline Arni","doi":"10.7788/ha-2018-260206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article starts from the observation that while the field of Historical Anthropology as represented in the journal \"Historische Anthropologie\" has defined itself predominantly in terms of its kulturwissenschaftlicher approach, the reception of social and cultural anthropology has somewhat thinned out. Harking back to the founding moment of the journal, the author makes a case for recuperating the critical impulse that animated the project when it assembled then non-mainstream approaches - like microhistory, Alltagsgeschichte , or history from below - under the common denominator of \"Historical Anthropology\", while raising the question of whether the focus on \"culture\" still provides the critical leverage it exerted at the time. She then reviews recent anthropological debates on the so-called \"ontological turn\" that unearthed the limitations of epistemological or representational approaches to alterity. In particular, the author draws attention to a sample of approaches developed in anthropology - especially by Philippe Descola, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Marilyn Strathern -, which provide heuristic tools that might support a renewal of the initial impulse towards radical historicization in Historical Anthropology.","PeriodicalId":292689,"journal":{"name":"Historische Anthropologie","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historische Anthropologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7788/ha-2018-260206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The article starts from the observation that while the field of Historical Anthropology as represented in the journal "Historische Anthropologie" has defined itself predominantly in terms of its kulturwissenschaftlicher approach, the reception of social and cultural anthropology has somewhat thinned out. Harking back to the founding moment of the journal, the author makes a case for recuperating the critical impulse that animated the project when it assembled then non-mainstream approaches - like microhistory, Alltagsgeschichte , or history from below - under the common denominator of "Historical Anthropology", while raising the question of whether the focus on "culture" still provides the critical leverage it exerted at the time. She then reviews recent anthropological debates on the so-called "ontological turn" that unearthed the limitations of epistemological or representational approaches to alterity. In particular, the author draws attention to a sample of approaches developed in anthropology - especially by Philippe Descola, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Marilyn Strathern -, which provide heuristic tools that might support a renewal of the initial impulse towards radical historicization in Historical Anthropology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文化呗改写历史有利人类反应
本文的出发点是观察到,虽然《历史人类学》杂志所代表的历史人类学领域主要以其文化智慧的方法来定义自己,但对社会和文化人类学的接受程度却有所减弱。回顾期刊的创刊时刻,作者提出了一个案例,在“历史人类学”的共同标准下,当它汇集了当时非主流的方法(如微历史、Alltagsgeschichte或下层历史)时,恢复了激励该项目的批判冲动,同时提出了一个问题,即对“文化”的关注是否仍然提供了它在当时施加的关键杠杆作用。然后,她回顾了最近关于所谓的“本体论转向”的人类学辩论,该辩论揭示了认识论或表征方法对另类的局限性。作者特别提请注意人类学中发展起来的方法样本——尤其是菲利普·德斯科拉、爱德华多·维韦罗斯·德·卡斯特罗和玛丽莲·斯特拉森——这些方法提供了启发式工具,可能支持历史人类学中激进历史化的最初冲动的更新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nachruf auf Fritz Kramer (1941–2022) An der Arbeit im selbstverwalteten Haus Brennende Hemden und antipatriarchale Aporien Wie revolutionär war die „neolithische Revolution“? Reflections on Twenty Years of Volunteering and Voluntary Action Scholarship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1